YouTube Transcript:
The Great Apostasy Debate | Joe Heschmeyer vs Jacob Hansen (Full Debate)

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This content is a transcript of a debate between Jacob Hansen (representing Latter-day Saints) and Joe Heshmire (representing Catholicism) on the topic of the "Great Apostasy." The central argument revolves around whether the original institutional church established by Christ fell into a universal apostasy after the apostles, necessitating a restoration, or if the church has maintained continuous institutional existence and authority.

Mind Map

Click to expand

Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate

Before we get to the debate, please note

that we did run into some audio issues

in producing this video. We did our best

to clean up the audio files, but please

accept our apologies if the audio at

>> Hello. Hello. Hello.

All right, we are about to begin.

the debate tonight. Thank you all for

coming and special thanks to St. John

the Baptist Parish for their

hospitality, Father Tilly for allowing

us to do this event here. Uh this debate

tonight is on the great apostasy. If you

don't know that, you're at the wrong

place. Okay. Uh our LDS debater is none

other than Jacob Hansen. Let's give him

This is going to tell us what the split

is in the room. Our Catholic debater is

>> Okay. Okay.

So, some very quick bios if you don't

know who these people are. Jacob Hansen

is a member of the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints. My hand is

shaking. I'm a little bit nervous.

Sorry, guys. If I can even read this. He

hosts the YouTube channel Thoughtful

Faith where he discusses philosophy,

theology, and social issues. Jacob owns

multiple businesses and is happily

married to his college sweetheart Erica.

And together they have four children. Beautiful.

Joe Heshmire is a staff apologist,

speaker, author, and blogger with

Catholic Answers, where he helps explain

and defend the teachings of the Catholic

Church. He hosts the Shameless Popery

YouTube channel, and has written several

books on Catholic doctrine and history.

Prior to his current work, he was a

litigation attorney and a seminarian,

and he holds degrees in history,

philosophy, and theology, living with

his wife and children near Kansas City.

Is that all correct?

>> Now we're in Kansas City, but yeah. Okay.

Okay.

>> I mean, that's not at the park.

>> Okay. Okay. Okay. So, mostly correct. Yes.

Okay. So, the structure of tonight's

debate, if you intend on staying

throughout the whole thing, we have

18minute opening statements from each

debater. Jacob is going to be going

first. We'll have a round of 10-minute

rebuttals from each debater followed by

15 minutes of cross-examination each

starting with Jacob. Then we're going to

do some Q&A with you guys and that will

last around 30 minutes and then we're

going to do five minute closing

statements on each side. Afterward,

we're going to have some rooms in the

back where you can meet the debaters.

It's going to be a great time. I'm

really excited about this. I I do need

to mention one thing. Okay, this is a

very spicy topic. It can get the

audience. Last, we had a little event

last night. We had some rowdiness here

and there. So, if you're going to get

rowdy, the ushers actually might escort

you out. So, let's try to keep it, you

know, calm and collected. Keep your

applause to the very end. So, it's very

natural to want to applause after each

speaker gets up here and says their

speech. Let's hold it all if we can to

the very end. With that, we're going to

open with some statements from both of

our debaters.

>> Yeah, just ecumenical statements. Uh

first of all, I want to say I don't know

why you're nervous. I'm debating Joe

Heshmire. Did you hear all the things in

his resume? Joe actually has been great.

I've gotten to know him over the last

few days. Personally, I have a lot of

respect for Joe Heshmire and for the

Catholic Church. Um I actually went to

Catholic schools growing up and uh it

was a wonderful experience. So, this

debate tonight, obviously, we're going

to go at it with with arguments and

things, but please know that uh it

doesn't come from a a place of anger or

hatred or something like that. So, so I

hope that we can keep that in mind.

>> Yeah, I would echo that. Um, last night

we had the dialogue thing that we just

heard about and there was something that

the Protestant pastor there said that I

thought was really beautiful, which is

that Mormons are an easy people to love.

And it's I think anyone who's lived in

Utah, whether you're LDS or not, uh

knows this to be true. And the

hospitality I've received here from

honestly from both Catholics and LDS,

has been staggering. This is my third

time in Utah. And I have never left

without some unexpected gift that I

didn't didn't come anywhere. Uh it's

been a painting. I've gotten I you look

at me and tell me why they're giving me

chocolate, but they're giving me

chocolate and rosaries obviously the

Catholic ones and so you all are

wonderful. So Utah, thank you very much.

And I think the LDS culture of

hospitality really helps to make that

that possible and so know this is coming

from a place of I think mutual

appreciation even in the midst of some

some very important disagreements as well.

well.

Can we do a few thanks as well?

>> Sure. Sure.

>> If I may, I'd like to thank a few people

uh real quick before we start. A lot of

the behind the scenes people. Well,

Jacob, first of all, all the

organization like he reached out. He

followed up when I forgot to get back

with him. I don't want to tell you how

many times that happened. Uh and like

organized everything. So, the fact that

this actually went from idea to

completion, Jacob carried that baby to

term. I mean, that was it was a labor of

love, but it was a labor. Uh, Monica

Bambbo, is that she was fantastic in

just greeting us. I didn't expect to be

treated like dignitaries when we arrived

in SLC. Uh, the audio is going to be an

appreciated work of laying this actually

be recorded and listened to later. uh

obviously Cameron for moderating, Jacob

for uh debating and uh also for your

your wife and kids for for giving up of

their time. I'd like to also thank my

wife Anna who is uh single-handedly

taking care of our kids and hopefully

it's going well. It either is or she is

just letting me think it is so that I

will have more peace of mind either way.

Uh and then yeah, thank you father and

St. John the Baptist and everyone else

around me have forgotten Isaac has

everybody who looked over stuff ahead of

time. So, thank you to all of you people

and hopefully it's a wonderful evening. >> Awesome.

>> Awesome.

>> You ready to Oh, just Oh, well, yeah.

Thank you, Erica from the parish. She's

been working with us. He said, "I

organized everything." It was Erica when

it comes to this this venue and stuff.

She did an amazing job. So, thank you so

much uh uh for that. Obviously, Joe, uh

Erica, if you see this with the kids, I

hope you're doing all right. Same same

thing. Thank you to all involved.

>> All right, let's go ahead and begin with

our opening statement from Jacob.

>> Perfect. And time starts when I begin

when you begin speaking. Cool. Just want

All right.

Now, with deep respect for the Catholic

Church in mind, we have gathered

together today to engage over some one

of our major differences. And Joe here

is here to claim that the pope has

always sat in the chair of Peter. And

therefore all believers in Christ,

including Cath or Protestants and

Orthodox, must submit to the infallible

dictates of the Pope because he is the

ultimate earthly authority for all

believers in Christ. And knowingly

rejecting his infallible decrees are in

Catholic dogma a mortal sin that leads

to an eternity in the fires of hell.

So to my Protestant friends, if Joe wins

tonight and proves that the Catholic

claims are true, I expect to be seeing

you alongside me praying the rosary at

mass this Sunday. But

But

is the Roman church the one true church?

Well, first we must discuss what we mean

by church. The word church can be used

to refer to the body of believers or it

can be used to describe the institution

that governs those believers.

Remember tonight's debate is not if the

church as a body of believers ever

ceased to exist. The church in the sense

of a body of believers has certainly had

a continual existence since the time of

Jesus Christ. And no doubt the Lord's

spirit worked amongst those believers.

Let me be clear. Latter-day Saints do

not teach that the church as a body of

sincere believers was ever lost from the

earth. But what about the institutional church?

church?

Is there an institutional church on

earth today that has continually held

the ultimate governing authority and

jurisdiction over all the world in the

same way that Peter and the other

apostles did?

Because if no one on earth holds that

same authority, then something was lost.

You see, Protestants and Catholics both

get something right. Catholics are right

to point out that Peter held a special

universal jurisdiction and authority.

And the Protestants are right to point

out that that central authority did not

exist after the apostolic era. So in

other words, something was lost.

So what about a uh so what is the great

apostasy? I want you all to write this

down today. When I talk about the great

apostasy, I mean the demonstrable

doctrinal and institutional corruption

that inevitably resulted from a loss of

the authority to receive ongoing binding

public revelation for the entire body of believers.

believers.

Look, we both agree that Christ

established one true visible

institutional church and that that

institutional church has either had a

continual existence or there was an

institutional apostasy. Those are the

only two options.

So, here's what a Roman Catholic like

Joe must do to win tonight's debate. He

must prove that the Catholic claims

about the continual existence of the

fullness of the institutional church are true.

true.

He must prove that the bishop of Rome,

the pope, has always had universal

jurisdiction over all believers.

And he must show that the popes have

been infallibly guided by God in such a

way that no saving doctrines have been

lost or added to or corrupted in any way.

way.

Good luck.

On the other hand, all I have to do is

show it that the history clearly demonstrates.

demonstrates.

And it demonstrates two things. first

that nobody, including the bishops in

Rome, thought that the local bishops in

Rome had ultimate infallible authority

over the church in the times before Constantine.

Constantine.

And second, that the popes have clearly

over the centuries corrupted and added

to the teachings and practices of the

first Christians without even claiming revelation.

revelation.

So, let's start with the first point.

Here's a question.

Did Peter have the authority to receive

new binding ongoing revelation for the

entire world? Obviously, yes. Does the

Pope today even claim to have that same

kind of authority? Here's what the

Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

Quote, "This magisterium only teaches

what has been handed to it. No new

public revelation is to be expected."

You see, Peter had the authority to

receive new binding public revelation

for the world. And the Pope doesn't even

claim to have that kind of authority. In

other words, something was lost.

And here's what's wild. Joe agrees.

In a recent convo with Gavin Ortland,

here's what Joe said. He said, quote,

"Bishops did not have the same role as

the apostles." When we say Peter was the

bishop of Rome, we don't mean he was the

bishop of Rome in the same way all

subsequent bishops were. Things were

more murky because of the presence of

the apostles who had this once in the

history of the church authority.

My jaw dropped when I heard Joe say

that. He literally said that Peter had a

type of authority that the bishops of

Rome did not have. So what does this

mean? It means something was lost.

And that's no small matter. The nature

and character of the church established

by Christ in the New Testament was to be

led by a living central authority guided

by revelation.

Having a prophet leading the people of

God through revelation is the biblical

ecclesiastical pattern found in both the

old and the new testaments. Amos 3:7

says, "Surely the Lord God will do

nothing, but he revealth his secret unto

his servants, the prophets."

It is simply a matter of historical fact

that there was no clear centralized

leader with universal jurisdiction in

the early Christian movement after the apostles.

apostles.

What you had was local authorities,

but no central universal authority that

acted as the ultimate adjudicator. In

other words, you no longer had the

church. You had the churches in an

institutional sense.

And in those churches, local

authorities, the bishops had no one

higher than themselves to adjudicate

final decisions.

All of us have to ask what mo model

better fits the historical data. Joe's

model that says that the bishop in Rome

held universal jurisdiction and was the

ultimate infallible adjudicator for all

believers or the model that essentially

all historians see which is that while

the local bishop of Rome was and he was

a very prominent bishop

he was not the ultimate infallible

adjudicator for all believers.

Now I claim a model that is essentially

what all historians see including honest

Catholics which is that while the local

bishop in Rome was a very prominent

bishop he never claimed universal

jurisdiction in the early church because

he and everyone else knew that he had

only local authority.

Now, for example, why does no one until

long after Constantine actually come out

and just say that the Roman bishop is

the ultimate authority anywhere for

anywhere except for Rome? Why did the

Roman bishop Victor I fail when he tried

to excommunicate people outside of his jurisdiction?

jurisdiction?

Is that what happens when someone is

seen by all as the ultimate authority?

Also surely in the early church when the

church needed to call its great

ecumenical councils of local bishops to

decide the binding doctrine for all

believers, the ultimate authority, the

bishop of Rome, surely he would be the

one calling the council. Right? Wrong.

Wrong.

Not only did the bishop of Rome not call

or preside over essentially any of the

first major councils, the emperor did.

Keep that in mind.

In the case of Constantinople 2, the

bishop of Rome was entirely against the

council. Is that what you would expect

if Christians understood him to be the

ultimate authority in the church?

Also, during the great doctrinal

disputes and heresies of the second

century, the bishop of Rome should be

the one that everyone looks to for final

judgment. But they don't do that. In the

age of heresy of the second century, the

Roman bishop is treated just as another

prominent bishop

So why did the bishop of Rome eventually

start claiming they had universal

jurisdiction and infallibility?

Well, think about it. Is it really a

coincidence that the Roman bishop in the

capital of the empire just happened to

become the ultimate authority in that empire?

empire?

You see, the nature of empires is to

centralize control and power. So, it's

not a coincidence when Christianity was

adopted by the Roman Empire that the

Roman bishops began over time expanding

their claims of jurisdiction, authority,

and political power.

Eventually, the Roman church began to

claim that they were the ultimate

spiritual and secular authority on

earth. And this power grab was rightly

rejected by the Eastern churches and

their bishops. And it split the church

in two in what is known as the great schism.

schism.

Also, let's do a quick thought

experiment. I want you to imagine for a

moment that I was writing about the

history of Catholicism during the last

300 years. Can you imagine how weird it

would be if nowhere in my history did I

mention a pope or a pop-like office?

Well, guess what guys? Around the year 320,

320,

was the first great historian who

undertook the task of writing the

history of the Christian church before

it was adopted by the Roman Empire.

Now surely he would mention something

about the supreme infallible leader of

the church during its first 300 years. Right?

Right? Wrong.

Wrong.

Nowhere incibious history does he

mention a pope or anyone with a pop-like

role. Instead, the history clearly shows

what I already mentioned and what every

scholar essentially believes

that what existed after the apostles

were local authorities governing local

churches trying their best to hold

But surely things went well, right?

Surely there was no corruption in the

centuries after the apostles, right? We

don't need ongoing pro ongoing prophetic

guidance for the people of God, right?

Well, Hedgesipus was a historian writing

a mere 50 years after the death of the

apostles. And here is what he described

happened. Quote, "The church continued

until then as a pure and uncorrupt

virgin. But when the sacred choir of

apostles became extinct, then the

combinations of error be uh error arose

by the delusions of false teachers and

there were none a as there were none of

the apostles left.

These also henceforth attempted without

shame to preach their false doctrine

against the gospel of truth. But how

could this happen? Well, just read the

Bible. The gospels were the good news.

The letters were largely the bad news.

They were the apostles constantly

writing to push back against error in

the church in its earliest days.

Paul says, "I'm astonished that you're

so quickly turning to a different

gospel." Jude says that certain people

have crept in like into the church

unnoticed, ungodly people who pervert

the grace of our God. You see, the

apostles were the bull work against

creeping apostasy. But as the earliest

historian pointed out, once the sacred

choir of apostles were gone, error began

to creep in.

So why should I believe Joe Heshmire

over Paul and the very first historians

writing just after the actual events? I

mean, go study the history of the

papacy, guys. Study the history of

indulgences, the murders, the orgies,

the greed, the incest, the torture, the

sacrilege, and all of the other

atrocities committed by the popes and

the papacy. Now,

Now,

Joe will admit that the popes did commit

all sorts of atrocities, horrible

atrocities, but then he'll say with a

straight face that it's impossible

that these same heretics could have ever

corrupted the doctrine.

Keep in mind that Joe will claim that

the Catholic Church

is the church of the first century.

But are we really going to pretend that

the first century taught the bodily

assumption of Mary or praying to saints

or icon veneration or papal

infallibility or indulgences or that the

Roman bishop had universal jurisdiction?

Why is it that these uniquely Catholic

doctrines are not found in the early church?

church?

Look, it's one thing if you claim a

doctrine has been revealed to you like

it was to Peter,

but Catholics don't believe that the

Pope receives new public revelation. He

just passes on what has been given to him.

him.

There is no record of these Catholic

dogmas anywhere in the historical record

until centuries after the apostolic era.

And if you're going to assert that the

apostles taught the infallibility of the

bishop of Rome, icon veneration and

marry and dogmas, then please provide

some evidence.

Just saying it's tradition without

specific evidence from that tradition

going back to the apostles, that's just

another way of saying trust me, bro.

But it's worse because in Catholic

dogma, if you willfully and knowingly

reject things like the bodily assumption

of Mary, you will have committed a

mortal sin.

meaning a sin that sends you to hell if

you don't repent of it. So instead of

providing evidence to back these dogmas

that the cath these dogmas, the Catholic

Church threatens you with hell if you

dare to question the pope's infallible pronouncements.

pronouncements.

Are we really going to stand here and

pretend that this is not a corruption of

the gospel of Jesus Christ?

If Christ was going to send people to

hell for not believing Mary was sinless

or for rejecting the Pope's infallible

decrees, you might think he or his

apostles might have mentioned that somewhere.

But you see, Joe believes these dogmas

because he presupposes

the validity of the papacy, not because

of the historical record, but in spite

of it. Just watch. The basis of Joe's

arguments tonight will very likely be to

simply presuppose that when the Bible

talks about the church, it is talking

about the institution started by the popes.

popes.

Also, every time Joe mentions Mormonism

today, I want you to whisper to the

person next to you, he's dodging. Remember,

Remember,

if he proved tonight that every claim

ever made by any LDS person was false,

it wouldn't change anything in this debate.

debate.

Ultimately, this debate is about if

there was an apostasy, and the truth of

Mormonism is not relevant to that

question. It's a question of historical necessity.

So, if I win tonight's debate, I do not

prove that Mormonism is true. It gives

solid grounds to believe there was an

institutional apostasy.

As a Catholic, Joe claims there was no

institutional apostasy because the papal

institution is the original church. It

is the bride of Christ and without the

But does history support papal claims to

infallibility, universal jurisdiction,

or the perfect preservation of apostolic

doctrine? It doesn't.

So Joe will simply presuppose the church

mentioned in the Bible must be the papal

institution known as a Catholic church,

and he will avoid the history that

refutes those claims. With that, I yield

my time.

>> Well, minute early. A minute early.

Great job, Jacob. All right, let's move

to Joe. And just to let you guys know,

as Joe goes up here, this is not his

rebuttal, okay? This is his opening

statement. So don't be prepared for him

to respond to everything that Jacob just said.

>> Joe, when you begin, I'll start the timer.

You can be forgiven for being confused

about what debate pertains to thought it

came to a debate about papacy. But in

fact, this was supposed to be a debate

about the great apostasy. And as you

know, there are huge swasts of the

Christian world who reject the Mormon

doctrine of the great apostasy without

believing in papal claims. That's your

first time that we're going to have to

redirect and actually get a little bit

back on topic. So what is the great

apostasy? Well, the Greek word apistasia

means falling away or literally standing

apart. And both Catholics and Mormons

and Protestants and Orthodox, we agree

that there is such a thing as personal

apostasy. You've got some Protestants

who believe in one. We're going to leave

them out of this tonight. But it's this

idea that you can lose your faith. They

fall away from the true church. That's

not what we're debating tonight. We

agree on we're debating tonight is

whether the church itself founded by

Jesus Christ, the visible institutional

church that he and I both agree is

founded by Christ of the New Testament,

whether that fell into a universal

apostasy, that the whole church

is gone,

institutionally gone. And this belief is

integral to the plaint of Mormonism in

particular. Jacob is going to call this

a dodge, but it absolutely is not. ONE

OF THE BIGGEST reasons people believe in

a great apostasy, if you're coming from

an LDS background, because Joseph Smith

teaches it, not because history reveals it.

it.

Preaching my gospel, the LDS church's

handbook for missionaries puts it like

this. A universal apostasy occurred

following the death of Jesus Christ to

his apostles. If there had been no

apostasy, there would have been no need

of a restoration. We agree on that.

If the great apostasy didn't happen,

Mormonism is false. On the flip side,

the great apostasy did happen.

Catholicism is false. So, neither of us

are going to prove our respective

religious tradition tonight, but we are

going to try to disprove one of them.

Hope that makes sense.

So if the Catholic side wins,

Mormonism's false and the Mormon side

wins, Catholicism is false. It's not

actually my job as the negative in this

to prove that the Roman church is the

one true church and paper. None of that

is to debate about whether or not the

great apostasy happens. And that's what

I'm going to debate. Jacob, I invite you

to think as well. So

let's get into the particular Mormon

iterations of the great apostasy. Right?

There are a couple versions of it. So

Joseph Smith in 1832 wrote his autobiography.

autobiography.

He said that between the ages of 12 and

15, he realized from searching the

scriptures that the various churches on

earth had all aposticized from the true

living faith and there was no society or

denomination that was built upon the

gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in

the New Testament. That's what he means.

And notice this happens between 12 to 15

and it's not very special revelation. He

went to derived his conclusion from

searching the scriptures. Then at age 16

he says he's praying again and the Lord

opened the heavens upon him and he saw

the Lord. A few years later he gives a

dramatically different version of fence.

It's hard to actually square with his

original one. in the inversion that's

part of Mormon canon in the pearl of

great price is no longer from searching

the scriptures that he comes to believe

in the great apostasy quite the contrary

now he's 16 and now he doesn't just see

the Lord he sees two personages heavenly

father and Jesus Christ and then he asks

him and I quote which of all the sex

were right for at this time did it never

enter into my heart that all were WRONG

SO HERE AT 16 HE DOESN'T believe the

great apostasy until heavenly father

Jesus Christ, tell him, "Join none of them."

them."

For they were all wrong. And the person

who addressed me said that all their

creeds were an abomination in his sight.

That those professors were all corrupt.

THAT'S A WEIRD THING. NOT DO YOU think

the Pope had universal jurisdiction.

The question is, are all of the creeds

of premonity abominations?

abominations?

and the church sent by Jesus Christ

wiped off the face of the earth.

So whichever version of the Joseph Smith

story you you choose to accept or turn

you're inclined towards the conclusion

would be the same. Christian churches

are all false and professing Christians

are all corrupt and even says the hearts

Perhaps then I would say jazz not

surprising that this belief system

is one of the reasons many Christians

don't regard Mormonism as part of

Christianity. As the use given says

Mormon insist on the need for a gospel restoration

restoration

but then feel the sting of being

excluded from the fold and prison they

have just as myth is irredeemably apostate.

apostate.

Like if you regard all the Christians on

earth as apostates, don't be shocked if

they don't SAY COME JOIN OUR CLUB.

So whatever else it means the general

apost means that after death the

apostles priesthood authority including

the keys to direct and receive

revelation to the church is taken from

the earth. Now here the story again

seems a bit confusing.

Some LDS official publications

proclaimed that men corrupted the

principles of the gospel and made

unauthorized changes in church

organization and priesthood ordinances

and that it was because of this

apostlate apostasy that the lord

withdrew the authority of the priesthood

from the earth. So in that version give

you corruption that leads to apostasy

that leads to Jesus withdrawing the

authority. That's the version one.

Version two also from official LDF

materials says that priesthood authority

was taken from the earth because the

church was no longer led by priesthood

authority error crept in church

teachings. So the second version of the

LDF great apostasy claim is that no the

doctrinal corruption doesn't lead to the

removal of the authorities. The removal

of the authority is what leads to the

doctrinal corruption. I don't know which

version of this Jacob is going to defend

tonight because he largely didn't talk

about it at all. But either way, the

stories have a bit murky. But that's

what I want to interrogate today. Are

those claims true? Because Mormon

missionaries were sent into the field to

really stress this story. A story we

As they put, as a diamond displayed on

Blackfeld appears more,

so the restoration stands in striking

contrast to the dark background of the

great apostles.

So that's the story. It's intentionally

a black and white story. That's complete point.

point.

So I want to interrogate those. Those

are start claims and hopefully we

understand what's going on.

Let's explore beginning first what the

Bible has to say. Remember the kind of

individuals are going to go into

apostasy. It's not even that a lot of

people are going to go into apostasy.

It's not that there are never going to

be heresies. Mormons and Catholics would

both admit that we have faced heresies

and false beliefs within our own faults.

That's not the standard. The standard,

what he's trying to prove here is that

there was a universal apostasy and that

it happened

quickly following the death of the

apostles. Talmage quoted in on the

church's website uh in doctrines of the

gospel claims that it happened almost

immediately perhaps before the year 100.

Now I want you to think about it.

Imagine for a minute THIS IS RIGHT.

IMAGINE that Jesus Christ in the first

century sets up a visible church with

the authority that those agree that the

church had and then imagine that in just

a few decades maybe a few years that

authority is going to be completely destroyed.

destroyed.

Would we expect to find that prophesied

in I don't know the New Testament?

I would suggest yes. That seems like a

fairly big event. Prophets like Isaiah

foretold in pretty explicit terms how

the Assyrians would conquer Samaria and

send the people into exile.

Prophets like Jeremiah for

Nebuchadnezzar would capture uh Judea

and destroy the temple and that there

would be a bow in capt captivity for 70

years. The guy, the empire, the number

of years of captivity is all explicitly

laid out. When there's a major

cataclysmic event, these things are

foretold in scripture. Jesus foretells

the destruction of the temple in

Jerusalem, saying that not one stone

will be left upon another. That happens

in the year 70.

The idea that just a few short years

after the writing of the last book of

the New Testament, the Christian church

is going to be removed from the earth

will become apostate.

And that doesn't bear even a mention. is

quite a remarkable mission. But

But

this is underscored by the fact that

according to scripture, the church is

the temple of the living God. 1 Timothy

3:15. And is a temple built both by and

upon Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:20. So

why doesn't Jesus or anyone else give us

clear unambiguous prophecies about his

church being destroyed by apostasy in

the very near future? I think that's a

question. anyone in here with LDS should

grapple with. You've been told one

version of events. It is a remarkable

omission that we find no clear

prophecies of either the great apostasy

or the coming of Joseph Smith in the

future. The Old Testament is full of

prophecies of the Messiah to come. The

New Testament is not full of stories of

Joseph Smith to come. Those are remarkables.

remarkables.

Instead, most of the defenses will

involve passages like Amos chapter 8. If

you come from Elia's background, chances

are you've heard of this where Amos 8

11- 12 talks about God sending a famine

in the land of hearing the words of the

Lord. But if you read Amos 8 in context,

you should note a few things. First,

it's not about the early church in the

first century or the early centuries

after Christ. It's explicitly 3 about

the northern kingdoms, what would later

be called Samaria.

It is then confusingly called Israel

while the southern tribes are called

Judea. I didn't name them but there you

go. So when it says Israel it means who

it calls Samaria and the famine of the

word is because the people wander from

sea to sea. That's east to west by the geography

geography

and from north to east. So where are

they not wandering? They're going north

east and west. They're not going south

to Judea where the word of the Lord is

Amos the prophet from the southern

kingdoms rebuking the northern kingdom.

That's all they is about. They have cut

themselves off from the words not

because of a universal apostasy but

because they refuted refused to go to

the church temple in Jerusalem or hear

from the southern prophets.

This passage is taken wildly out of context

context

to condemn the early Christians as

apostate and it's simply false. SO IT'S

NOT JUST scripture is silent. It's not

just that there is no clear case for it.

It's that we have numerous promises

showing that the kingdom Christ comes to

We're in the season of Advent. As we

approach Christmas, we should remember

the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary

where they announce that Mary has

prepared Jesus and that the Lord God

will give to him the throne of his

father David and he will reign over the

house of Jacob forever and of his

kingdom there will be no end.

Similarly, you got the promises of

Isaiah the unto us the child is born

prophecy. The government will be on his

shoulder and of the reign of this

newborn God, king who is called

wonderful counselor, mighty God,

everlasting father, prince of peace.

Isaiah tells us that the increase of his

government will know no end and that he

will reign with justice and with

righteousness from this time forth and

forever more.

Those promises, I would suggest, are not

consistent with his government having an

abrupt end a few decades.

You can also look at Jesus's own

descriptions of the kingdom in places

like Matthewap 13 with the kingdom of

heaven parables. He describes the

kingdom as a field containing both wheat

and weeds which will grow together until

it flows of the age. He compares it to a

mustard seed, the smallest of seeds

which grows into the greatest of shrubs.

He likens the growth of this kingdom to

that of leaven bread rising. He doesn't

say the weeds are ashes for the fields.

the mustard seed is going to die out and

not bear fruit. It's going to need to be

replanted 1700 years later. He doesn't

say the bread is going to trial and rise

and it won't. None of that. The

promises, the prophecies, the parables

in Jesus all point in one direction

against the great apostles. And then of

course you have passages like Matthew

chapter 16 where he famously tells Peter

that on this rock I will build my church

and the gates of Hades shall not prevail

against it.

And I would suggest that if the church

goes away for 1700 years, that is

against the king to prevent them

against. I I suspect we'll talk about

that more later.

But there's more.

When he sends his followers out of the

great commission, he says, "I am with

you always to the close of the age." At

the last supper, he promises to to send

the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth to

be with us forever, to dwell within us.

And he promises that the spirit of truth

will teach us all things and will guide

us into all the truth. That is

inconsistent with all of our creeds and abominations.

abominations.

The New Testament depicts THE CHURCH NOT

JUST as your disciples following after

Jesus and in fact not just as an

institution but in fact as people

incorporated into Jesus spiritually as

the bride of Christ as the very body of

Christ. In Ephesians 1:23, Paul calls

the church the fullness of him who fills

all and all. In Ephesians 5, he talks

about the church and Christ becoming one

flesh as if man his wife become one flesh.

flesh.

There is no separation of head from

body. There is no separation of

bridegroom from bride without I mean

completely contrary to the whole

Christian story.

You see this as well through the story

of Acts and throughout the New

Testament. that there is a clear sense

of the growth of the church. St. Paul

says to the Colossians that the word of

the truth, the gospel which has come to

you as a gain of the whole world. It is

bearing fruit and growing.

His story is that even though there are

conflicts without and within,

nevertheless, it's growing. It's going

in the right direction. The mustard seed

And somehow the tide returns. Now, some

of you are not nerdy enough to get that

reference, but in Star Wars episode 9,

they undo the entire narrative arc of

the first eight episodes, which clearly

shows the rise and fall of Palpatine and

his death. And then they say, I'm not

going TO RETURN. WELL, SIMILARLY, THE

MORMON CLAIM IS, OKAY, JESUS PROMISES

THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT, he's

always going to have a remnant. He

promises in the New Testament, there's

going to BE A MUSTARD SEED THAT GROWS

INTO A MUSTARD TREE. THERE'S A CLEAR

ARC, and somehow THE CHURCH DIED. NO

ESCALATION, NO PREFIGUREMENT, nothing

that would point to this being the

logical next chapter of the story.

We can talk about that,

but I want to give one additional

passage that I think is an incredibly

powerful one. Daniel chapter 2. In

Daniel 2, King Nebuchadnezzar has this

dream of a statue. It has a head of

gold, breast and arms of iron, belly and

thighs of bronze, legs of iron, feet of

iron and

THIS IS UNDERSTOOD BY DANIEL as

prefiguring four successive kingdoms

beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's own

Babylonian Empire. You can then trace

this of the four successive kingdoms

that rule over Israel. The next is the

Mayo Persian Empire. The third is the

Greek Empire and the fourth is the Roman

Empire which is of course reigning over

Israel at the time of Christ.

It's during this time that Daniel says

in the days of those kings, even the

fourth king, the God of heaven will set

up a kingdom which shall never be

destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be

left to another people. that the

establishment of the church during the

time of the Roman Empire is explicitly

foretold because as stone not formed by

human hands will come and establish.

This is the clear prefigurement prophecy

of the establishment of the church by

Christ from heaven and this kingdom

existing on earth. Okay, there's much

more that we could get to but I want to

close with four very quick thoughts.

First, the LDS church claims that it

will never fall into apostles. But if

you think about the merit of its claims,

it cites to do the actual covenants 138

44 which is itself just referencing

Daniel 2 and it to Daniel 2. Now Daniel

2 points to something happening during

the reign of the Roman Empire, not 19th

century America. So those are better

proofs that there won't be a great

apostasy during the time of the first

century church rather than the so-called

restoration. Second, I want to propose a

simple test.

And if you listen to Jacob make

arguments for the great apostasy just

ask would that argument disprove

Mormonism as well to see if it's a good

argument. We'll get into that later. And

then actually I'll save my other two

because I've not allocated my time very well.

well.

>> All right. Thank you Joe. All right. Now

we are going to move to the first

rebuttal from Jacob. And this one is

set up here.

All right. Well, I have to give Joe

credit. He did an excellent job of

tearing down things that Latter-day

Saints don't believe. The idea here is I

I I think Joe made a little error here

in thinking he understood what we mean

when we talk about the great apostasy.

The idea that we believe that every

Christian was totally corrupt and that

any Christian belief and the spirit of

God working on the world ceased to exist

at some point. That's not what we

believe, guys. Literally, I have here a

quote from Joseph Smith after he read

about the Christian martyrs of history.

He said, quote, "I have seen those

martyrs." He's talking about a vision.

They were honest, devoted followers of

Christ according to the light they

possessed. They will be saved.

Does that sound like somebody who thinks

that all Christians in the past were

corrupt and evil and that the believers,

the body of believers was gone from

history? Of course not, you guys. In our

Book of Mormon, it talks about the Catholic,

Catholic,

Christopher Columbus being worked on by

the Holy Spirit to help God fulfill his purposes.

purposes.

One of the earliest press releases from

our church said the following. God is

using more than one people for the

accomplishment of his great work. He is

using the Catholic, the Protestant, and

the Jew. Truth is scattered abroad among

all churches. It's just a

misunderstanding here. But but I want to

do something for a minute.

I would like to just assume that

Mormonism isn't true. That all the

things that Joe said is right. All their

interpretations of Daniel and all that,

that's all wrong. Okay, cool. So, what

church is the true church, Joe? He says

he doesn't have to validate the papacy.

But here's the So, how can we even tell

if there was a great apostasy? The way

you tell is that the original church

isn't around anymore.

If the original church isn't around on

an institutional level, then there was

an institutional apostasy. How do you

disprove that? How do you show that

there was no institutional apostasy? You

have to point to an institution that

exists that has existed continually

going all the way back to Peter and the

apostles that holds his same ultimate

authority and jurisdiction. That's how

That's why I focused my arguments on the

arguments made by the Catholic Church

because Joe and I actually agree.

We agree that in the early church, his

book Pope Peter, by the way, you all

should go buy it. Imagine me telling you

all to go buy the book of the guy that

I'm debating against. Go buy the book

Pope Peter. It's a great book. And it

establishes that Peter did hold ultimate

centralized universal jurisdiction over

the church, over the church, over the

body of believers. We don't believe that

body of believers ever went anywhere,

but it's clear from the history that

that didn't continue. And so there was

an institutional apostasy. Okay.

Okay.

Now, he's going to bring up this idea

that, well, wait a minute. Did the did

Christ fail? Did the bride of Christ

die? Well, what if the bride of Christ

is bigger than the papacy? What if the

bride of Christ are those who are

sincerely seeking our Lord and Savior

Also keep in mind that our current

president of the church said the

following. God the son told the boy

prophet that all of the creeds of the

churches of that day were an abomination

of in his sight. We affirm that this

divine declaration was a condemnation of

the creeds not of the faithful seekers.

And those professors remember he's

talking about those professors. Remember

when he said those professors were

corrupt. Do you guys know what the

context of that was? Joseph had just

been to a revival in his own hometown

and the professors who were he was

dealing with were the local Protestant

specifically Calvinist pastors

and they were pretty corrupt when you

actually learn the history of how they

interacted with his family and stuff. He

was talking about those professors.

It's just contradictory to say that we

believe that there we do believe in a

universal apostasy. But he doesn't

understand what we mean by that term.

What we mean is that there was a

universal loss of the ultimate authority

in the church

that is crucial to its ongoing progress

and to combat heresy, which is what the

apostles were successfully able to do.

He also brought up the gates of hell.

Um, the gates of hell will not prevail

against the church, guys. Oh boy, it's

over for me, right? We're done.

Um, until you realize, although he did

quote, right? He said it was the gates

of Hades. I'm actually going to read

from the Catholic Confraternity Bible

commentary about this verse. It says,

quote, "In all these passages, the

Hebrew for gates of hell is the gates of

shol or in other words, the gates of

death." Shol or Hades was the name of

the abode of the dead. The whole

expression in this passage means the

power of death. Christ is predicting

that his church will be immortal.

What's the purpose of a gate?

It's like, "Oh no, the gate's going to

get me. Gates don't attack you. Gates

lock things in. The proper understanding

is the gates of death will not prevail

against the church. Can anyone think of

something that Jesus did that blew open

the gates of death?

I can. And if you think this is me, just

my crazy Mormon interpretation, here's

what Jack P. Lewis, the great Harvard

trained biblical scholar, said. He says,

"If one wants to expound a teaching that

all hell can do will never overcome the

church, that's all well and good, but

Matthew 16:18 should not be twisted into

being considered a proof text for it."

Keeping in line with the linguistic

data, the gates of Hades is to be

considered as a figure of speech for

death which cannot keep the Christian imprisoned.

imprisoned.

So that's what that verse means.

By the way, even if it meant what he

said, the whole claim of our church is

that the gates of hell didn't prevail.

Like the church was restored. So, um,

but did God fail? How could God have

failed? How could he have done this? Oh, no.

no.

Well, first of all, I can refute

basically everything that Joe is saying

about these biblical prophecies. We

realize it's not talking about the

Catholic Church. It's talking about the

body of believers. As soon as that

happens, everything he's saying just

doesn't work. Now,

Now,

what if the bride of Christ was the

kingdom of God and the body of sincere

believers that has had that continual

existence? Interesting. Have you guys

ever thought about Revelations 12?

Revelations 12 is talking about the

future and this describes a woman

who has to flee into the wilderness for

a time because the dragon is threatening

her child.

Just something to think about.

Also, what happened to the apostles

called by Jesus? In fact, I think we

might even have things in this church

that show what happened. They were killed.

killed.

Has Christ ever in the history of the

world withheld his messengers and

prophets from the world because he knew

they were going to kill his messengers?

Did you know that for hundreds of years,

for centuries before the coming of Jesus

Christ, he withheld his prophets from

the people of Jerusalem? Let's listen to

why he did that. He says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem,

Jerusalem,

thou that klest the prophets, and

stonest them who are sent unto thee. How

often I would have gathered thee

together like a hen gatherth her

children or her chickens under her

wings." And this is the key line, "and

ye would not."

He said, "Behold, your house is left

unto you desolate." See what he's saying?

saying?

God didn't fail in the centuries prior

to Jesus coming. But when we rebel in

such a way that we will just simply kill

his messengers, that's what will happen.

So did God fail before Jesus when he

didn't send his messengers when he had

to withhold them for a time? What's

actually really ironic is that the

papacy used to kill people that they

deemed as heretics. So even if God

wanted to send a prophet, they would

have killed him.

It's almost like we needed a land with

religious pro with religious liberty for

a prophet to even have a chance. Now, we

may say, well, whoa, it took 8,500 years

for all of this to to resolve. Can you

guys think of something that happened,

let's say, around 1776 that had a major

impact in the world of religious liberty?

liberty?

I can you ever thought that maybe those

miraculous events in the founding of

this nation

Now, very quickly, if Joe wants to try

and establish the papacy,

because that's what he has to do to win

tonight, he has to show that there was

an institutional church that has a

continuous existence. Otherwise, what is

the conclusion everyone?

It's that there wasn't a continuous

institution, which means there was an apostasy.

apostasy.

So, if you might try and do that, I

think he probably will go to Irenaeus. I

know that's a very common one because

Irenaeus said, "It is a matter of

necessity that every church should agree

with this church." And he's talking

about the church in Rome on account of

its preeminent authority. I read that

quote, I got a little nervous, but then

I read the rest of what he said. He

said, "It is when within the power of

every church to reckon up those who were

by the apostles instituted bishops in

the churches." He says since however it

would be very tedious in such a volume

as this is as to reckon up all the

successions of all the churches we do

indicate the tradition derived from the

apostles of Rome. So he was just using

Rome as an example in this just so we

all know Robert Enino who's actually a a

Catholic professor he knows this he says

the context of argument does not claim

that the Roman church is literally

unique the one and only in its class.

Rather he argues that the Roman church

is an outstanding example of its class.

the class being the apostolic churches.

So, I'm about out of time here. So, what

happens is is he has to show that there

was an institution that continued

through and that it wasn't just a

collection of local churches that

remained, but that there was an

institutional centralized authority that

adjudicated everything. He has to

validate the claims of the papacy.

Because if the papacy isn't true, I want

to ask Joe, well then point me to the

true church because if you can't, then

All right, we are now turning to Joe's

first rebuttal. Again, another 10

minutes. After that, we will go to crossexam.

Love that. Uh, so you may remember he's

still saying that I have to prove to you

to papas and that's simply not a debate

happen. He could have invited me to a

debate on papus. He didn't. He invited

me to a debate on the great apostasy and

I said yes. I think it's a really good

starting point. Once you see that

scripture clearly shows that Jesus is

going to establish a kingdom and his

authority will not be left to another.

It will not go away. It will not be

overcome. You can then say where do we

find that? And you're basically left

with two options. Eastern Orthodox

Church and Roman Catholic Church. So I'm

not intending to solve that second

problem for you tonight. If you want to

approach me afterwards, I could give you

some hints or as Jacob said, you read my

book here. But what I am intending to do

is establish that there was in fact no

great apostasy. And in fact I think I

can put this to a very simple test. In

fact St. Paul's teacher Helio does so in

Acts chapter 5. He stands up and he says

men of Israel take care what you do with

these men. And then he gives the example

of prior messianic groupness that came

before. And so for instance he says

Thaddius rose giving himself out to be

somebody and a number of men about 400

joined him but he was slain and all who

followed him were dispersed and came to

nothing. After him Judas Galilean arose

the days of the census and drew away

some of the people after him. He also

perished and all that followed him were

scattered. So in the present case I tell

you keep away from these men and let

them alone. For if this plan or this

undertaking is of men it will fail. But

if it is of God you will not be able to

overthrow them. You might even be found

yourself opposing God. So that's the

test. If upon the death of Jesus and the

apostles we scatter, then it wasn't of

God. When Joseph Smith dies, there's the

succession of Christ in 1844. When

Muhammad dies, there's a Sunni Shia.

These false teachers when they die,

there's immediately a dispersal and you

have them go in separate ways. You don't

have the 12 apostles forming their

separate churches. You want to compare

the 12 apostles to say I don't know who

the witnesses of the Book of Mormon and

see how many of them did in the church

as opposed to how many of the witnesses

did. I will be happy to compare that.

What we find in the early years are that

during the time of the apostles and

afterwards the whole narrative arc is

very clear. The church is growing.

Rodney Stark gives some of the founders

of his book Rise of Christianity, how

the obscure Marshall Jesus movement

became the dominant religious force in

the Western world in a few centuries.

And he estimates using the sociological

tools that they go from a pretty small

handful in the first century to 33

million Christians by about the year

350. And this is before Christianity

becomes the official religion of the

Roman Empire. That doesn't look like a

movement that's failed. Now, if he's

going to place the institutional church

and the body of Christ, but all of the

references to the church as kingdom,

that just doesn't sound like a loose

body of believers wherever they may be.

We both agree there may be people of

goodwill who are going to be warmly

accepted into heaven even though they

were mistaken out of the institutional

church. That's not the debate tonight.

The debate tonight is whether the

institutional church, the kingdom

established by Christ, died out and left

this world for 1700 years. And to be

clear, if that happened, then the gates

of Hades did prevail

as gates of Hades is uh what is it

called? Sectic. Um it means hate death.

The power of death. So it is death. The

death of the apostles means that for the

next 1500 years there's no institutional

church who needs a restoration. then

death prevails. He says, "Well, he comes

back eventually." That's not good

enough. If you look at the Greek word

being used for prevail, it includes even

a temporary triumph. When Midian

triumphs over Israel for 5 years, it

says they prevailed over Israel for 5

years. If the power of death prevailed

over the institutional church for 1700

years because God was too afraid to send

a prophet cuz they might get hurt, then

the gates of hell prevailed. the power

of death prevails.

So that's the question. Okay. Want to

make sure there's a couple other things

want to make sure I get it. So this is

He says living central authority guided

by revelation.

He's conflating here the ability to

receive revelation and write scripture

with apostolic authority. Half of the 12

apostles never write a word of the New

Testament. Two of the four gospel

writers aren't even claiming to be

apostles. It is just a mistake to

conflate those two categories of

evangelist and apostle. Those are not

the same.

Additionally, the whole thing here is

that the faith is received once for all

in Jude 1:3 tells us.

The reason there's no further revelation

isn't because people were so wicked, but

because God finished revealing

everything in the person of Jesus

Christ. In many and various ways he

spoke to his SOUL BY THE PROPHETS, BUT

NOW HE'S revealed himself by the son. As

Hebrews 1 tells us Jesus is the image of

the invisible God. He's the fullness of

revelation. And that's why we don't take

see any of uh those further if I have

>> I had it written down to number three.

BUT JESUS IS THE FULLNESS OF REVELATION.

THE reason there's no more is the reason

there shouldn't have been any more Star

Wars. you finished telling the story.

I know this is also debated about the

Now, James can say things like, "Oh, but

we don't find anything about the bishop of Rome and Ucius's history of the

of Rome and Ucius's history of the church." Simply not true. He traces all

church." Simply not true. He traces all the bishops to throw. He does so in

the bishops to throw. He does so in books for chapter 11. I wouldn't looked

books for chapter 11. I wouldn't looked it up if you saw me Google it on my

it up if you saw me Google it on my phone. I'm searching for every chapter.

phone. I'm searching for every chapter. So it's just not true. AND AS HE QUOTED

So it's just not true. AND AS HE QUOTED from me, I says it is a matter of

from me, I says it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with

necessity that every church agree with this church.

this church. So even if you wanted to debate, which

So even if you wanted to debate, which is not what this debate is actually

is not what this debate is actually about, you would still find the early

about, you would still find the early Christians pointing to Roman authority

Christians pointing to Roman authority during the time of the apostle

during the time of the apostle while the apostle John is still living.

while the apostle John is still living. First Clementism. This is the letter

First Clementism. This is the letter written to Clement of Rome in the year

written to Clement of Rome in the year 96. And he writes to the Corinthians to

96. And he writes to the Corinthians to settle the dispute in Corinth, notably

settle the dispute in Corinth, notably not part of Italy. It's not even in the

not part of Italy. It's not even in the west. Corinth in the east has written to

west. Corinth in the east has written to the bishop of Rome, not the apostle

the bishop of Rome, not the apostle to settle an internal church dispute. SO

to settle an internal church dispute. SO IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT A PAPACY

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT A PAPACY DEBATE, I'm happy to come back to

DEBATE, I'm happy to come back to Draper. I love you guys.

Draper. I love you guys. And we can have that debate. But I DO

And we can have that debate. But I DO WANT TO ADDRESS his misquotation of

WANT TO ADDRESS his misquotation of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus. He says we can put we can

I'm sorry we can put to confusion there all of us in whatever manner by whether

all of us in whatever manner by whether by an evil self-pleasing by vain glory

by an evil self-pleasing by vain glory or by blindness opinion a symbol of

or by blindness opinion a symbol of unauthorized meetings by indicating that

unauthorized meetings by indicating that tradition derives from the apostles of

tradition derives from the apostles of the very great the very Egypt and

the very great the very Egypt and universally known church founded and

universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most

organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul and

glorious apostles Peter and Paul and also the faith preached to them which

also the faith preached to them which comes down to our time by means of

comes down to our time by means of succession of the bishops. For it is a

succession of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church

matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church on account

should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority. No other

of its preeminent authority. No other church is spoken of in them.

church is spoken of in them. So if you're saying well if there's no

So if you're saying well if there's no great apostasy we would expect a church

great apostasy we would expect a church to have that kind of authority like

to have that kind of authority like Peter had. You find the successors of

Peter had. You find the successors of Peter and he then lists how the blessed

Peter and he then lists how the blessed apostles he defamed of Peter and Paul

apostles he defamed of Peter and Paul having built having found and built up

having built having found and built up the church committed into the hands of

the church committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopant and

Linus the office of the episcopant and then he names every bishop of Rome from

then he names every bishop of Rome from the time of the apostles down to 180.

the time of the apostles down to 180. Here's September. Here's what is Elish.

Here's September. Here's what is Elish. If he's right, at some point God took

If he's right, at some point God took authentic governance from the church and

authentic governance from the church and this succession stopped. And you would

this succession stopped. And you would think that'd be the kind of thing people

think that'd be the kind of thing people noticed talked about.

noticed talked about. If you expecting to have apostles

If you expecting to have apostles forever, if that's the LDS claim, then

forever, if that's the LDS claim, then the first thing you should notice,

the first thing you should notice, there's only one time where you see the

there's only one time where you see the apostle get replaced. That's Acts

apostle get replaced. That's Acts chapter 1. And explicitly in Acts

chapter 1. And explicitly in Acts chapter one, the requirement is that is

chapter one, the requirement is that is someone who has been following Christ

someone who has been following Christ from the beginning. That is obviously

from the beginning. That is obviously impossible in subsequent centuries. So

impossible in subsequent centuries. So the reason there aren't apostles after

the reason there aren't apostles after the first century isn't because of the

the first century isn't because of the wickedness of men or because God

wickedness of men or because God withdrew his authority or because there

withdrew his authority or because there were bad guys killing the good guys,

were bad guys killing the good guys, which by the way happened throughout

which by the way happened throughout history. There was no 400 years of

history. There was no 400 years of silence. He's wrong about God not

silence. He's wrong about God not sending prophets to Jerusalem 400 years.

sending prophets to Jerusalem 400 years. Look at Luke 2. You have Anna, the

Look at Luke 2. You have Anna, the prophetist in the temple. The law the

prophetist in the temple. The law the prophets testified until John the

prophets testified until John the Baptist, chief proud of that.

Baptist, chief proud of that. The point there is this whole great

The point there is this whole great apostasy story is simply not true.

apostasy story is simply not true. In fact, even BYU historians will tell

In fact, even BYU historians will tell you that this is a narrative that

you that this is a narrative that Mormons received largely from

Mormons received largely from anti-atholic Protestants that has not

anti-atholic Protestants that has not held up to historical scrutiny. This

held up to historical scrutiny. This idea of the bad old ages of the wicked

idea of the bad old ages of the wicked Catholic Church is built on a series of

Catholic Church is built on a series of halftruths and outright falsehoods.

halftruths and outright falsehoods. Mormons didn't invent those, but they

Mormons didn't invent those, but they believed them and they fell for a false

believed them and they fell for a false vision of history. NOW, JACOB CAN TELL

vision of history. NOW, JACOB CAN TELL YOU, "OH, when he says that all the

YOU, "OH, when he says that all the professors are false, it just means

professors are false, it just means Calvinists in New York." If that's all

Calvinists in New York." If that's all it is, there wouldn't be a need for a

it is, there wouldn't be a need for a restored church of Jesus Christ cuz you

restored church of Jesus Christ cuz you could just leave New York or find a

could just leave New York or find a non-Calvinist. He says all of the creeds

non-Calvinist. He says all of the creeds are false and not to join any of the

are false and not to join any of the churches. So

churches. So we'll continue this conversation, but I

we'll continue this conversation, but I want to again remind you of that final

want to again remind you of that final test. Whatever argument he gives,

test. Whatever argument he gives, whether it's doctrinal corruption or a

whether it's doctrinal corruption or a change in doctrine or anything else

change in doctrine or anything else disproves the church, you'll see that

disproves the church, you'll see that that applies much stronger to Mormonism

that applies much stronger to Mormonism than it does to the early Christian

than it does to the early Christian church. All right.

church. All right. >> All right. Let's give them a round of

>> All right. Let's give them a round of applause.

Part of the reason I wanted to do that is cuz I could feel the tension in the

is cuz I could feel the tension in the room just growing and growing. Let's get

room just growing and growing. Let's get some of it out. So, and this is also

some of it out. So, and this is also like historically the spiciest part of a

like historically the spiciest part of a debate, the cross exam. I want to lay a

debate, the cross exam. I want to lay a little bit of the ground rules. So, the

little bit of the ground rules. So, the ground rules are the person who are who

ground rules are the person who are who is asking the question controls the

is asking the question controls the conversation. It is not rude for them to

conversation. It is not rude for them to interrupt and say, "Hey, you're not

interrupt and say, "Hey, you're not answering the question." Right? That

answering the question." Right? That person is in charge of their time. He

person is in charge of their time. He Jacob only has 15 minutes. Joe only has

Jacob only has 15 minutes. Joe only has 15 minutes. With that out of the way,

15 minutes. With that out of the way, let's go ahead and begin.

let's go ahead and begin. >> Okay. And it's all questions, right?

>> Okay. And it's all questions, right? Like, no statements, only questions.

Like, no statements, only questions. Yes.

Yes. >> Okay. Wanted to make sure that Okay. So,

>> Okay. Wanted to make sure that Okay. So, um Joe, is the Orthodox Church the true

um Joe, is the Orthodox Church the true church? I would say no, but I I think

church? I would say no, but I I think you could believe.

you could believe. >> That's the only question. That's the

>> That's the only question. That's the only question I had. I just yes or no.

only question I had. I just yes or no. Is

Is >> it's part of the true church. I would

>> it's part of the true church. I would say that it's part of the true church.

say that it's part of the true church. >> Okay. So, the true church doesn't

>> Okay. So, the true church doesn't require the papacy.

require the papacy. >> The papacy

>> The papacy is at the head of the church. The

is at the head of the church. The Orthodox by means of valid apostolic

Orthodox by means of valid apostolic succession are in a fractured union with

succession are in a fractured union with the pope.

the pope. >> And I think they would even acknowledge.

>> And I think they would even acknowledge. >> But would would you do you have the

>> But would would you do you have the church if you don't have the papacy? You

church if you don't have the papacy? You have the fullness of the church in the

have the fullness of the church in the Catholic Church. So we would say we

Catholic Church. So we would say we would say they are churches. We would

would say they are churches. We would not say that of uh Protestant

not say that of uh Protestant denominations wouldn't.

denominations wouldn't. >> So the church is not so the church is

>> So the church is not so the church is the body of believers.

the body of believers. >> No.

>> No. >> What do you mean by the church then?

>> What do you mean by the church then? >> Yeah. So Ignatius talks about this in

>> Yeah. So Ignatius talks about this in 107 that the church at the local level

107 that the church at the local level involves the bishop. If you don't have

involves the bishop. If you don't have the trifold structure, bishop, preser

the trifold structure, bishop, preser deacon, you don't have a true church.

deacon, you don't have a true church. This is what he says to the Ephesians.

This is what he says to the Ephesians. Uh so because they have valid apostolic

Uh so because they have valid apostolic succession the orthodox and also the

succession the orthodox and also the Coptics have true churches at the local

Coptics have true churches at the local level. At the universal level the papacy

level. At the universal level the papacy is necessary.

is necessary. >> So to have the fullness of the church

>> So to have the fullness of the church you have to have the the ultimate

you have to have the the ultimate infallible adjudicating authority for

infallible adjudicating authority for the church to have the fullness.

the church to have the fullness. >> Well you have to have the pope. You can

>> Well you have to have the pope. You can get into questions of jurisdiction and

get into questions of jurisdiction and all of that.

all of that. >> So if that was lost you wouldn't have

>> So if that was lost you wouldn't have the fullness of the church.

the fullness of the church. >> You wouldn't either jurisdiction or the

>> You wouldn't either jurisdiction or the papacy.

papacy. the the universal jurisdiction that the

the the universal jurisdiction that the pope holds. If you didn't have if you

pope holds. If you didn't have if you miss if you didn't have the pope, would

miss if you didn't have the pope, would you have the fullness of the church?

you have the fullness of the church? >> If you didn't have the papacy, you

>> If you didn't have the papacy, you wouldn't have the the fullness of the

wouldn't have the the fullness of the church from Catholic respect.

church from Catholic respect. >> So, um

if the you said this quote, if the papacy isn't of apostolic origin, then

papacy isn't of apostolic origin, then we should reject the Catholic Church. Do

we should reject the Catholic Church. Do you still hold to that view?

you still hold to that view? >> If the papacy isn't of apostolic origin?

>> If the papacy isn't of apostolic origin? >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, then if that were the case,

>> Okay. So, then if that were the case, could you point me to the true church?

could you point me to the true church? >> I would go Orthodox or maybe Coptic, but

>> I would go Orthodox or maybe Coptic, but probably Orthodox.

probably Orthodox. >> Very cool. Um,

>> Very cool. Um, so would you have the fullness of the

so would you have the fullness of the church

church >> if I didn't believe in the papacy? I

>> if I didn't believe in the papacy? I mean, sorry. It sounds like you're

mean, sorry. It sounds like you're posing a counterfactual where I'm not a

posing a counterfactual where I'm not a Catholic.

Catholic. >> Yeah. Yeah. It So, so you wouldn't have

>> Yeah. Yeah. It So, so you wouldn't have You had said that you didn't, you don't

You had said that you didn't, you don't have the fullness of the church without

have the fullness of the church without the papacy, which to me sounds like

the papacy, which to me sounds like essentially what Latter-day Saints are

essentially what Latter-day Saints are claiming when we claim

claiming when we claim the um that the fullness of the church

the um that the fullness of the church was lost, but that there still was a

was lost, but that there still was a body of of believers. How is that

body of of believers. How is that different from what I'm saying?

different from what I'm saying? >> Yeah. So, we would say you wouldn't need

>> Yeah. So, we would say you wouldn't need to have like a new prophet come along

to have like a new prophet come along and restart Jesus's church if you were

and restart Jesus's church if you were Orthodox and didn't believe in the

Orthodox and didn't believe in the papacy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your

papacy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I was saying before you

question, but I was saying before you were asking if I believe in the papacy

were asking if I believe in the papacy as a Catholic and I said yes.

as a Catholic and I said yes. >> Yeah. But no, I'm saying is it is it

>> Yeah. But no, I'm saying is it is it essential to have the fullness of the

essential to have the fullness of the church? Because if you don't have the

church? Because if you don't have the fullness of the church, you need

fullness of the church, you need something to be restored. Correct.

something to be restored. Correct. >> If you don't have the fullness of the

>> If you don't have the fullness of the church, you should be in full communion

church, you should be in full communion with the church.

with the church. >> Okay. Like we would say there's still

>> Okay. Like we would say there's still that like if

that like if >> but if it was missing just real quick if

>> but if it was missing just real quick if there was no pope would we need a pope

there was no pope would we need a pope to have the fullness of the church?

to have the fullness of the church? >> Yeah that's why we have a conclave we

>> Yeah that's why we have a conclave we had that happen recently.

had that happen recently. >> I know but I'm saying I'm not talking

>> I know but I'm saying I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about in general

about that. I'm talking about in general if you don't have a pope don't you need

if you don't have a pope don't you need to have to have the fullness of the

to have to have the fullness of the church? You need to have the you you

church? You need to have the you you don't have the fullness of the church.

don't have the fullness of the church. So if if a Latter-day Saint makes the

So if if a Latter-day Saint makes the argument that there was an apostasy,

argument that there was an apostasy, meaning that there was a loss of of of

meaning that there was a loss of of of apostolic authority and we believe that

apostolic authority and we believe that it needed to be restored to have the

it needed to be restored to have the fullness of the church. I don't

fullness of the church. I don't understand how that's different from

understand how that's different from what

what >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like

>> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like literally like when a pope dies, we have

literally like when a pope dies, we have a conclave to elect a new pope. So if

a conclave to elect a new pope. So if you're just literally asking but if

you're just literally asking but if you're saying would the Catholic claim

you're saying would the Catholic claim be true if the papacy was false? No. Uh

be true if the papacy was false? No. Uh is it possible for the papacy to just go

is it possible for the papacy to just go away forever? No.

away forever? No. >> Okay. So I I don't know if that's

>> Okay. So I I don't know if that's answering your question.

answering your question. >> So So

>> So So what would you what would convince you

what would you what would convince you that there was an institutional

that there was an institutional apostasy?

apostasy? >> If the Pope infallibly taught something

>> If the Pope infallibly taught something clearly erroneous,

clearly erroneous, >> okay, let's let's let's just go with

>> okay, let's let's let's just go with that. Let's just stay with that one for

that. Let's just stay with that one for a moment.

a moment. >> Are all of the dogmas of the Catholic

>> Are all of the dogmas of the Catholic faith apostolic in origin?

faith apostolic in origin? >> Yes.

>> Yes. >> Okay. Can you provide me with a specific

>> Okay. Can you provide me with a specific quote from the apostles or anyone in the

quote from the apostles or anyone in the first 500 years of the church

first 500 years of the church unambiguously teaching the substance of

unambiguously teaching the substance of the Catholic dogma that Mary was assumed

the Catholic dogma that Mary was assumed into heaven in bodily form?

into heaven in bodily form? >> You mentioned Revelation 12 before and

>> You mentioned Revelation 12 before and there are early Christians who look to

there are early Christians who look to that as as evidence of Mary's bodily

that as as evidence of Mary's bodily assumption.

assumption. >> But that's not what I asked. I said, is

>> But that's not what I asked. I said, is there anyone who unambiguously teaches

there anyone who unambiguously teaches the substance?

the substance? >> I don't know. So I'm I'm trying to

>> I don't know. So I'm I'm trying to answer the question as I understand it.

answer the question as I understand it. If you're asking like where's the word

If you're asking like where's the word trinity in the Bible kind of question

trinity in the Bible kind of question then you're right like you can always do

then you're right like you can always do that but that's not how we do theology.

that but that's not how we do theology. So I think that may be just kind of

So I think that may be just kind of talking past one another.

talking past one another. >> Okay. So can you provide me with a

>> Okay. So can you provide me with a specific quote from someone in the first

specific quote from someone in the first 300 years of Christianity explicitly

300 years of Christianity explicitly teaching the substance of the Vatican 1

teaching the substance of the Vatican 1 dogma of papal infallibility.

dogma of papal infallibility. >> It is necessary for every church to

>> It is necessary for every church to agree with his church on account of his

agree with his church on account of his agreement authority. That's that's and

agreement authority. That's that's and you're going to go with that that that

you're going to go with that that that proves the papacy that that is an

proves the papacy that that is an explicit teaching of the substance of

explicit teaching of the substance of the Vatican.

the Vatican. >> I just I wanted to follow up with that

>> I just I wanted to follow up with that question. I just want to clarify that

question. I just want to clarify that you you're saying that that statement

you you're saying that that statement explicitly teaches the substance of the

explicitly teaches the substance of the Vatican 1 dogma of papal infallibility.

Vatican 1 dogma of papal infallibility. >> Logically, yes. If you say it is a

>> Logically, yes. If you say it is a matter of necessity that every Christian

matter of necessity that every Christian agrees with the church of Rome and the

agrees with the church of Rome and the church of Rome teaches that the pope's

church of Rome teaches that the pope's infallible, then it is I mean major

infallible, then it is I mean major premise, minor premise, draw a

premise, minor premise, draw a conclusion.

conclusion. >> So

>> So why do you disagree with Robert Eno, the

why do you disagree with Robert Eno, the professor of church history at Catholic

professor of church history at Catholic University of America? Hold on one

University of America? Hold on one moment. When he says the context, okay,

moment. When he says the context, okay, well then let's go to another one. Let's

well then let's go to another one. Let's go to William Leoo, another Catholic

go to William Leoo, another Catholic scholar. In his book, The Chair of St.

scholar. In his book, The Chair of St. Peter he says for Irenaeus it is those

Peter he says for Irenaeus it is those churches of apostolic origin that have

churches of apostolic origin that have the greater claim to authentic teaching

the greater claim to authentic teaching and doctrine. Among those Rome with its

and doctrine. Among those Rome with its two apostolic founders certainly holds

two apostolic founders certainly holds an important place. However, all of the

an important place. However, all of the apostolic churches enjoy what he terms

apostolic churches enjoy what he terms preeminent authority and doctrinal

preeminent authority and doctrinal matters. Why is he wrong?

matters. Why is he wrong? >> Well, he's not wrong in the fact that

>> Well, he's not wrong in the fact that all of the apostolic churches have an

all of the apostolic churches have an authority in in matters of doctrine. But

authority in in matters of doctrine. But the church that he singles out, the most

the church that he singles out, the most glorious church of Rome is for a reason.

glorious church of Rome is for a reason. He gives that reason. He says on account

He gives that reason. He says on account of its preeminent authority. He doesn't

of its preeminent authority. He doesn't say every church has the same preeminent

say every church has the same preeminent authority within the So the category

authority within the So the category he's given, he says we could trace the

he's given, he says we could trace the lineage of all of the apostolic

lineage of all of the apostolic churches. So apostolic church is

churches. So apostolic church is important. And then within that list,

important. And then within that list, within that genus, he singles one out,

within that genus, he singles one out, Rome, and says the reason he singles it

Rome, and says the reason he singles it out is on account of its preminent

out is on account of its preminent authority. So he's saying there's a

authority. So he's saying there's a specific difference within this genus of

specific difference within this genus of among the absolute churches this one is

among the absolute churches this one is >> so so why does Irenaeus say the

>> so so why does Irenaeus say the following he says it would be very

following he says it would be very tedious in such a volume as this to

tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the

reckon up the successions of all the churches we do indicate that

churches we do indicate that uh we do indicate that tradition

uh we do indicate that tradition tradition derived from the apostles

tradition derived from the apostles organized at Rome so he is saying that

organized at Rome so he is saying that he's essentially doing this for

he's essentially doing this for brevity's sake in his own words and I

brevity's sake in his own words and I encourage oh I'm sorry

encourage oh I'm sorry >> no no no I I would agree with that like

>> no no no I I would agree with that like he could he's telling you we had the

he could he's telling you we had the record and Tertullian mentions this in

record and Tertullian mentions this in about the year 200 as well that every

about the year 200 as well that every church founded by the apostles could

church founded by the apostles could list every bishop they'd had and

list every bishop they'd had and obviously if if he made if you've ever

obviously if if he made if you've ever read against heresies the book has

read against heresies the book has lengthy very boring passages

lengthy very boring passages >> do do you but are you claiming are you

>> do do you but are you claiming are you claiming that because I don't doubt that

claiming that because I don't doubt that that local jurisdiction was given to

that local jurisdiction was given to these bishops by apostles I don't I

these bishops by apostles I don't I don't deny that I'm asking though where

don't deny that I'm asking though where is the evidence that universal

is the evidence that universal jurisdiction was given from the apostles

jurisdiction was given from the apostles not just local jurisdiction.

not just local jurisdiction. >> I don't think the question of universal

>> I don't think the question of universal jurisdiction is what we need to prove in

jurisdiction is what we need to prove in a debate about the great apostasy. You

a debate about the great apostasy. You could

could >> it is if you it is well I'm sorry you

>> it is if you it is well I'm sorry you could be wrong about universal

could be wrong about universal jurisdiction from a Catholic perspective

jurisdiction from a Catholic perspective and still say the church on earth

and still say the church on earth existed. In fact, the whole question of

existed. In fact, the whole question of what the nature of the pope's uh

what the nature of the pope's uh immediate jurisdiction is is a question

immediate jurisdiction is is a question that's really way more nuanced because

that's really way more nuanced because for instance, in the East, we let

for instance, in the East, we let patriarchs choose their

patriarchs choose their >> But wouldn't that but wouldn't that mean

>> But wouldn't that but wouldn't that mean that there was an inst institutionally

that there was an inst institutionally something was lost if we didn't have the

something was lost if we didn't have the papacy?

papacy? >> Well, I'm not saying the papacy is lost.

>> Well, I'm not saying the papacy is lost. >> No, I'm not saying that either. I'm

>> No, I'm not saying that either. I'm asking if the papacy didn't exist, that

asking if the papacy didn't exist, that would mean that the fullness of the

would mean that the fullness of the church was lost and something would need

church was lost and something would need to be restored because the apostolic

to be restored because the apostolic office would be gone. Correct. So in

office would be gone. Correct. So in this hypothetical, just to clarify, are

this hypothetical, just to clarify, are you asking if just the pope is gone or

you asking if just the pope is gone or if any mechanism of ever having a pope

if any mechanism of ever having a pope is gone?

is gone? >> No, I I think I've I think I've

>> No, I I think I've I think I've clarified. I want to ask you about the

clarified. I want to ask you about the uh the Kedi statement, the Chiieti

uh the Kedi statement, the Chiieti statement in 2016. Um, if we're going to

statement in 2016. Um, if we're going to assume that the fullness of the

assume that the fullness of the institution of the church existed

institution of the church existed throughout all time within the Roman

throughout all time within the Roman bishop, why does why did the Vatican's

bishop, why does why did the Vatican's theologians in the cheddy statement stay

theologians in the cheddy statement stay in the west? The primacy of Rome was

in the west? The primacy of Rome was understood from the 4th century onwards.

understood from the 4th century onwards. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among

The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishop was gradually interpreted as

the bishop was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his and this

a prerogative that was his and this understanding was not adopted in the

understanding was not adopted in the east. Why would they say that if the

east. Why would they say that if the church always had the fullness of its

church always had the fullness of its structure?

structure? >> Well, first of all, this is a statement

>> Well, first of all, this is a statement by a panel of theologians. It has no

by a panel of theologians. It has no binding weight as a Catholic document. I

binding weight as a Catholic document. I want to make very clear about that.

want to make very clear about that. >> Why Why would you disagree with them,

>> Why Why would you disagree with them, though? Why do you think they're wrong?

though? Why do you think they're wrong? >> Because the the particular delegate who

>> Because the the particular delegate who was representing the Catholic side there

was representing the Catholic side there has a kind of idiosyncratic vision of

has a kind of idiosyncratic vision of history that was critiqued even by other

history that was critiqued even by other Catholic scholars as being not a very a

Catholic scholars as being not a very a very precise way. This is part of the

very precise way. This is part of the issue why if you're going to get in the

issue why if you're going to get in the weeds on jurisdiction, that's just not

weeds on jurisdiction, that's just not going to be the way you prove a great

going to be the way you prove a great apostasy. It's not going to be.

apostasy. It's not going to be. >> But what if the apostasy is is is

>> But what if the apostasy is is is defined as the loss of the fullness of

defined as the loss of the fullness of institutional uh authority in the

institutional uh authority in the church? Wouldn't it meet that criteria?

church? Wouldn't it meet that criteria? >> It would you would not be showing how an

>> It would you would not be showing how an Orthodox wouldn't like an Orthodox

Orthodox wouldn't like an Orthodox person hearing that would say, "Yeah,

person hearing that would say, "Yeah, the papacy is bad." And also there was

the papacy is bad." And also there was no great apostasy. So it wouldn't

no great apostasy. So it wouldn't actually meet your burden.

actually meet your burden. >> Yeah. But if if we define apostasy

>> Yeah. But if if we define apostasy ourselves as Latter-day Saints as a loss

ourselves as Latter-day Saints as a loss of the fullness of the institutional

of the fullness of the institutional church and then we can demonstrate that

church and then we can demonstrate that there was a loss of the fullness of the

there was a loss of the fullness of the institutional church even by your own

institutional church even by your own standards. Doesn't that mean that there

standards. Doesn't that mean that there was an apostasy using our definition?

was an apostasy using our definition? >> I'm I'm trying to understand what it is

>> I'm I'm trying to understand what it is you're arguing. But you would have to

you're arguing. But you would have to show I think that the keys and

show I think that the keys and priesthood authority were taken away.

priesthood authority were taken away. The Pope's jurisdiction in the West in

The Pope's jurisdiction in the West in the 4th century is not, as far as I can

the 4th century is not, as far as I can tell, at all pertinent to that debate.

tell, at all pertinent to that debate. I'm happy to have that debate if you

I'm happy to have that debate if you want to do a debate about the papacy,

want to do a debate about the papacy, but that was not the debate I came

but that was not the debate I came prepared to talk about.

prepared to talk about. >> I I I can see that. And I'm just

>> I I I can see that. And I'm just wondering why you would think if if our

wondering why you would think if if our wouldn't it make sense that you have to

wouldn't it make sense that you have to defend the papacy as the fullness of the

defend the papacy as the fullness of the institutional church?

>> Well, let me let me let me let me actually let me ask another one. Um I

actually let me ask another one. Um I want to talk about uh St. Cyprien

want to talk about uh St. Cyprien >> of Carthage. Um he said talking about

>> of Carthage. Um he said talking about the bishops because you've claimed that

the bishops because you've claimed that Irenaeus said that there was a bishop of

Irenaeus said that there was a bishop of bishops of sorts for none. This is what

bishops of sorts for none. This is what Cyprien says in 256. He says for no one

Cyprien says in 256. He says for no one of us bishops sets himself up as a

of us bishops sets himself up as a bishop of bishop or forces his

bishop of bishop or forces his colleagues to obedience. Each bishop has

colleagues to obedience. Each bishop has his own right of judgment and can no

his own right of judgment and can no more be judged by another man than he

more be judged by another man than he himself can judge another. So if Cyprien

himself can judge another. So if Cyprien is saying this, does that not imply from

is saying this, does that not imply from a Catholic perspective that the fullness

a Catholic perspective that the fullness of the institutional church including

of the institutional church including the papacy was missing at that time?

the papacy was missing at that time? >> No. If you read Cyprian's other

>> No. If you read Cyprian's other statements where he talks about the

statements where he talks about the bishop of Rome at the time that he

bishop of Rome at the time that he writes that in 256, he's actually in a

writes that in 256, he's actually in a conflict with the bishop of Rome and is

conflict with the bishop of Rome and is stressing his local authority basically

stressing his local authority basically saying back off the second Vatican.

saying back off the second Vatican. >> But what but wouldn't he recognize?

>> But what but wouldn't he recognize? Didn't everyone know? Wouldn't everyone

Didn't everyone know? Wouldn't everyone have like if today if a bishop goes

have like if today if a bishop goes against the pope, everyone knows like

against the pope, everyone knows like you're you're wrong. We have to stay

you're you're wrong. We have to stay with the pope, right?

with the pope, right? >> On a matter of doctrine, on a matter of

>> On a matter of doctrine, on a matter of local adjudication of his dascese,

local adjudication of his dascese, Vatican 2 is explicit. Bishops are not

Vatican 2 is explicit. Bishops are not the vicers of the pope. And so the idea

the vicers of the pope. And so the idea that the pope is the bishop of bishops

that the pope is the bishop of bishops is actually not a good understanding of

is actually not a good understanding of the Catholic idea of the papacy at all.

the Catholic idea of the papacy at all. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. >> Um

>> Um did the church in Antioch the bishop of

did the church in Antioch the bishop of Antioch have universal jurisdiction?

Antioch have universal jurisdiction? >> No.

>> No. >> Did the bishop briefly?

>> Did the bishop briefly? >> That's that's it. I'm just going to just

>> That's that's it. I'm just going to just that one question. So just yes or nos.

that one question. So just yes or nos. So the bishop of Jerusalem it depends

So the bishop of Jerusalem it depends when

when >> was Jerusalem did the bishop of

>> was Jerusalem did the bishop of Jerusalem have universal Jerusalem

Jerusalem have universal Jerusalem >> when Peter was there in Jerusalem and

>> when Peter was there in Jerusalem and Antioch he possess that fullness of

Antioch he possess that fullness of authority I

authority I >> I'm asking about the specific bishop of

>> I'm asking about the specific bishop of Antioch that that existed in the let's

Antioch that that existed in the let's say the second century in the second

say the second century in the second century in the second century did the

century in the second century did the bishop of Antioch have universal

bishop of Antioch have universal jurisdiction

jurisdiction >> no in fact he doesn't claim to find did

>> no in fact he doesn't claim to find did the bishop of Jerusalem

the bishop of Jerusalem >> no

>> no >> did the bishop of Smyrna

>> did the bishop of Smyrna >> no

>> no >> okay so can you show me the Or what

>> okay so can you show me the Or what documentation do we have? Can you

documentation do we have? Can you provide me with any documentation

provide me with any documentation showing that the bishop of Rome was

showing that the bishop of Rome was actually given universal jurisdiction

actually given universal jurisdiction and not just local jurisdiction?

and not just local jurisdiction? >> Uh yeah, I already gave one example of

>> Uh yeah, I already gave one example of first clement of him adjudicating

first clement of him adjudicating authority. I already pointed to

authority. I already pointed to >> did did bishops would did did uh did

>> did did bishops would did did uh did other bishops ever write letters to

other bishops ever write letters to other churches?

other churches? >> Sure. But this

>> Sure. But this >> did did Athanasius write to intervene in

>> did did Athanasius write to intervene in the in the affairs of other churches

the in the affairs of other churches when they were dealing with issues? In

when they were dealing with issues? In fact, when they wrote to the bishop of

fact, when they wrote to the bishop of Rome, he responded by rebuking them for

Rome, he responded by rebuking them for not reaching out earlier to settle the

not reaching out earlier to settle the matter.

matter. >> Was the bishop or was the letter by

>> Was the bishop or was the letter by Clement actually written like does it

Clement actually written like does it say like Clement's name or was it

say like Clement's name or was it written

written >> on behalf of the church of Rome?

>> on behalf of the church of Rome? >> Was it written anonymously?

>> Was it written anonymously? >> Well, not it's internally anonymous in

>> Well, not it's internally anonymous in the same way that like

the same way that like >> So, it was it was an anonymous letter.

>> So, it was it was an anonymous letter. It doesn't say like I Clement say XYZ.

It doesn't say like I Clement say XYZ. It's we in Rome say the following.

It's we in Rome say the following. >> It's the church of Rome is answering the

>> It's the church of Rome is answering the question.

question. >> Does he issue any commands in that

>> Does he issue any commands in that letter?

letter? >> Yeah. He tells them to obey their

>> Yeah. He tells them to obey their precedence.

precedence. >> Okay. Does he issue those commands as

>> Okay. Does he issue those commands as binding?

binding? >> He says he doesn't do it in the same way

>> He says he doesn't do it in the same way Peter or Paul do.

Peter or Paul do. >> Cool. Cool. Just want to make sure that

>> Cool. Cool. Just want to make sure that uh does he claim that he has authority

uh does he claim that he has authority over that church?

over that church? >> If you're saying like does he say

>> If you're saying like does he say >> Oh, I'm sorry. Not I'm sorry. I said I

>> Oh, I'm sorry. Not I'm sorry. I said I said he in this anonymous letter that is

said he in this anonymous letter that is attributed to Clement. Does he does

attributed to Clement. Does he does >> does does the group who wrote the letter

>> does does the group who wrote the letter claim authority over that other church?

claim authority over that other church? >> There is no group who wrote the letter.

>> There is no group who wrote the letter. Then why is it addressed as we say this?

Then why is it addressed as we say this? >> Because he is speaking as the bishop on

>> Because he is speaking as the bishop on behalf of the whole church in the same

behalf of the whole church in the same way that like your president might speak

way that like your president might speak on behalf of the whole church of Jesus

on behalf of the whole church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints.

Christ and Latter Day Saints. >> Okay.

>> Okay. >> But there's no no one has ever ascribed

>> But there's no no one has ever ascribed it to a committee or a panel or a group.

it to a committee or a panel or a group. It is universally been attested as

It is universally been attested as Clementine in origin.

Clementine in origin. >> On what basis?

>> On what basis? >> Uh we have the early testimonies of

>> Uh we have the early testimonies of people like Urenaeus. Like we have

people like Urenaeus. Like we have people in the 100s who say they got it

people in the 100s who say they got it from Clement. the Christians in Corinth

from Clement. the Christians in Corinth were reading it as scripture because it

were reading it as scripture because it came from Clement of Rome.

came from Clement of Rome. >> Um, when you say that the entire

>> Um, when you say that the entire >> One last question.

>> One last question. >> Okay, last question. Um, when you say

>> Okay, last question. Um, when you say that Latter Day Saints believe in this

that Latter Day Saints believe in this universal apostasy where all Christians,

universal apostasy where all Christians, Christianity was totally lost, how do

Christianity was totally lost, how do you reconcile that with the fact that

you reconcile that with the fact that Joseph Smith literally said that the

Joseph Smith literally said that the great Christian martyrs of history were

great Christian martyrs of history were saved in the kingdom of God?

saved in the kingdom of God? >> I only said the first half of that. said

>> I only said the first half of that. said there was a universal apostasy and I

there was a universal apostasy and I good I took that statement from the

good I took that statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints website. So I think that may be a

Saints website. So I think that may be a question better directed in house.

question better directed in house. >> Joe has 15 minutes to cross-exam Jacob

>> Joe has 15 minutes to cross-exam Jacob and again he can interrupt if he needs

and again he can interrupt if he needs to and uh whenever you begin we'll all

to and uh whenever you begin we'll all start our timers. There's like three

start our timers. There's like three timers up here. So

timers up here. So all right Jacob let's talk about Daniel

all right Jacob let's talk about Daniel 2. Can you explain how Daniel 2 would be

2. Can you explain how Daniel 2 would be pointing to the restoration of the

pointing to the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the 19th century in America?

Saints in the 19th century in America? >> Um, for the sake of argument, no, I I

>> Um, for the sake of argument, no, I I don't. Let's just say that let's just

don't. Let's just say that let's just say that I I don't agree with that. I

say that I I don't agree with that. I don't think it changes the the issue

don't think it changes the the issue that's going on in this debate. The

that's going on in this debate. The debate is not about if Mormon

debate is not about if Mormon interpretations of Daniel 2 are correct.

interpretations of Daniel 2 are correct. I'm just going to for the sake of

I'm just going to for the sake of argument, I'll just say that Mormonism

argument, I'll just say that Mormonism is false. But you still you still end up

is false. But you still you still end up >> from coming. I think we where we end up

>> from coming. I think we where we end up though in that situation is I if this

though in that situation is I if this debate is about the apostasy I I

debate is about the apostasy I I literally could be here saying look I

literally could be here saying look I want to find the true church. I want to

want to find the true church. I want to unite to the true church but then I and

unite to the true church but then I and then I' I'd go to you and say and if you

then I' I'd go to you and say and if you can't point to a true church then I have

can't point to a true church then I have to assume that there was an apostasy.

to assume that there was an apostasy. >> So you're that's a really interesting

>> So you're that's a really interesting language. So your argument is just that

language. So your argument is just that if I don't prove the papacy you're just

if I don't prove the papacy you're just going to assume apostasy.

going to assume apostasy. >> Well you'd have to point me to another

>> Well you'd have to point me to another church.

church. >> So I as a negative have to actually

>> So I as a negative have to actually affirm the true church is the cath

affirm the true church is the cath Apostasy is a negative. It is it is the

Apostasy is a negative. It is it is the lack of a true church on earth. That's

lack of a true church on earth. That's what the apostasy is. If you don't have

what the apostasy is. If you don't have a continual uh a continuous existence of

a continual uh a continuous existence of a church on earth that goes all the way

a church on earth that goes all the way back to the apostles, then you have an

back to the apostles, then you have an institutional apostasy as defined by the

institutional apostasy as defined by the church.

church. >> When do you claim the Catholic Church

>> When do you claim the Catholic Church began?

began? >> The current iteration in about 1965

>> The current iteration in about 1965 during Vatican 2. Well, here's the

during Vatican 2. Well, here's the thing. If you want to say that the

thing. If you want to say that the Catholic Church ultimately is a set of

Catholic Church ultimately is a set of teachings and doctrines and things like

teachings and doctrines and things like that,

that, >> but if you want to say that you can't

>> but if you want to say that you can't >> Well, that's fine. Well, as an outsider,

>> Well, that's fine. Well, as an outsider, if I'm looking at this, again, dropping

if I'm looking at this, again, dropping any Mormon presuppositions, I I would

any Mormon presuppositions, I I would have to say that the church that you

have to say that the church that you live in today isn't the one that's

live in today isn't the one that's burning heretics, that is telling

burning heretics, that is telling Protestants that they're all going to

Protestants that they're all going to hell. That was the Catholic Church for a

hell. That was the Catholic Church for a very long time. I'm very glad that

very long time. I'm very glad that you're not a part of the Catholic Church

you're not a part of the Catholic Church that used to be. And when I talk about

that used to be. And when I talk about the Catholic Church and say how much I

the Catholic Church and say how much I appreciate it, I am talking about the

appreciate it, I am talking about the modern Catholic Church. The Catholic

modern Catholic Church. The Catholic Church needed to be reformed from what

Church needed to be reformed from what it used to.

it used to. >> If if I'm understanding you correctly,

>> If if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying if a church changes not

you're saying if a church changes not only its teaching, but even its

only its teaching, but even its behavior, that means it's a different

behavior, that means it's a different church.

church. >> No, that's

>> No, that's >> okay. So, what was it that made a new

>> okay. So, what was it that made a new church in 1965?

church in 1965? >> Well, I don't know what what what is the

>> Well, I don't know what what what is the what is the essence of the Catholic

what is the essence of the Catholic Church?

Church? >> I'm asking the I'm trying Okay. Oh, no.

>> I'm asking the I'm trying Okay. Oh, no. No. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, I

No. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, I just I just I guess Well, but I have to

just I just I guess Well, but I have to understand what you're asking. I'm

understand what you're asking. I'm asking, you just told me that the

asking, you just told me that the Catholic Church began in 1965, which is,

Catholic Church began in 1965, which is, I'll just say considerably, the latest

I'll just say considerably, the latest date I've ever heard. Uh,

date I've ever heard. Uh, and I'm wondering how in the world you

and I'm wondering how in the world you came to that.

came to that. >> Well, if if if the papacy is an

>> Well, if if if the papacy is an essential characteristic

essential characteristic of the Catholic Church, then the papacy

of the Catholic Church, then the papacy began, I would say, really in its

began, I would say, really in its fullest development in at Vatican 1.

fullest development in at Vatican 1. >> Okay. So the the there was no Catholic

>> Okay. So the the there was no Catholic church. Like when Martin Luther broke

church. Like when Martin Luther broke away, he didn't break away from the

away, he didn't break away from the Catholic Church. He broke away from

Catholic Church. He broke away from something else.

something else. >> Well, the problem is that the papacy at

>> Well, the problem is that the papacy at that time was defined differently. It

that time was defined differently. It didn't have

didn't have >> sounds like you're not you unless you

>> sounds like you're not you unless you have your beard. Like it just seems like

have your beard. Like it just seems like the way you're defining this is so

the way you're defining this is so curious. How how what in 1870 creates a

curious. How how what in 1870 creates a new church if that's your claim. So I

new church if that's your claim. So I guess the doctrines and teachings of the

guess the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church that never existed

Catholic Church that never existed before then that are essential to the

before then that are essential to the character of the Catholic Church which

character of the Catholic Church which is it is essential to the character of

is it is essential to the character of the Catholic Church that you have an

the Catholic Church that you have an infallible pope and that was only

infallible pope and that was only dogmatically defined in 187

dogmatically defined in 187 >> didn't phrase the Catholic Church

>> didn't phrase the Catholic Church >> because it didn't exist yet. Right.

>> because it didn't exist yet. Right. >> Okay. So I would say that what well he

>> Okay. So I would say that what well he was talking about the institution that

was talking about the institution that claimed to be the Catholic Church. Okay.

claimed to be the Catholic Church. Okay. And so

And so >> this this institution is what I'm

>> this this institution is what I'm actually asking about.

actually asking about. >> Okay.

>> Okay. >> I'm I'm less interested in what you

>> I'm I'm less interested in what you think about its teachings and more

think about its teachings and more interested or what you think about its

interested or what you think about its practices. I'm asking you when that

practices. I'm asking you when that institution came from. Like if I said,

institution came from. Like if I said, "Oh, the US is totally different now.

"Oh, the US is totally different now. Therefore, the US started in, you know,

Therefore, the US started in, you know, 2020." You would say, I don't want to

2020." You would say, I don't want to get political.

get political. You would say, "That's ridiculous.

You would say, "That's ridiculous. There's an institutional integrity back

There's an institutional integrity back to 1776." Right.

to 1776." Right. >> Yeah. Okay. So, so institutional

>> Yeah. Okay. So, so institutional integrity you have to define for me to

integrity you have to define for me to understand the question I have to

understand the question I have to understand what do you mean what is the

understand what do you mean what is the the essence of

the essence of uh what

uh what >> well no but but I have to it's it's

>> well no but but I have to it's it's important to understand what you're

important to understand what you're asking me you're saying when did the

asking me you're saying when did the Catholic Church begin

Catholic Church begin when the church of Jesus Christ of

when the church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints began right like I

Latterday Saints began right like I either say 1844 or before that with

either say 1844 or before that with Joseph Smith because

Joseph Smith because >> we claim that there was there was

>> we claim that there was there was authority given at that time that has

authority given at that time that has this had a continual existence. Now,

this had a continual existence. Now, maybe that's not true. Maybe that's

maybe that's not true. Maybe that's totally false. But but that's what I'm

totally false. But but that's what I'm saying is if you want to talk about a

saying is if you want to talk about a continual existence, you have to point

continual existence, you have to point to something that has a continual

to something that has a continual existence.

existence. >> And I'm asking you if you don't think it

>> And I'm asking you if you don't think it had a continual existence, when does the

had a continual existence, when does the institution come into being? What are

institution come into being? What are some of the records of we're building a

some of the records of we're building a new church, we're calling it the

new church, we're calling it the Catholic Church or anything like that?

Catholic Church or anything like that? trying to the thing is it didn't happen

trying to the thing is it didn't happen like the Catholic Church

like the Catholic Church >> as the essence of the Catholic Church as

>> as the essence of the Catholic Church as it exists today does not exist

it exists today does not exist historically as you go through the

historically as you go through the historical record

historical record >> until when

>> until when >> they came about bit by bit. So some of

>> they came about bit by bit. So some of the things were only dogmatically

the things were only dogmatically defined in in Vatican 1. Some things

defined in in Vatican 1. Some things were only dogmatically defined in other

were only dogmatically defined in other countries.

countries. >> I'm not as in the teaching. I'm as of

>> I'm not as in the teaching. I'm as of the institution because you wouldn't

the institution because you wouldn't presumably

presumably >> What do you mean by institution? For

>> What do you mean by institution? For example, in 1870 when I assume you're

example, in 1870 when I assume you're talking

talking >> when you're talking the first Vatican

>> when you're talking the first Vatican council, are you saying there's a

council, are you saying there's a different church that starts the council

different church that starts the council and a different church that ends the

and a different church that ends the council?

council? >> Depends on how you define church.

>> Depends on how you define church. >> I'm trying to wait. Do you mean the

>> I'm trying to wait. Do you mean the institutional church or do you mean

institutional church or do you mean that? And if you're talking about the

that? And if you're talking about the institutional church, as I understand

institutional church, as I understand it, the essence of the Catholic Church's

it, the essence of the Catholic Church's institution is the papacy. It's the

institution is the papacy. It's the unique institution that the Catholic

unique institution that the Catholic Church claims that goes all the way back

Church claims that goes all the way back to the apostles. If that does not exist,

to the apostles. If that does not exist, then we go all the way back through

then we go all the way back through history. Then what happens is then I

history. Then what happens is then I have to say that the Catholic Church

have to say that the Catholic Church began once that institution was defined

began once that institution was defined as such.

as such. >> So and so that happens in 1870. There

>> So and so that happens in 1870. There was no Catholic Martin Luther didn't

was no Catholic Martin Luther didn't break away from the Catholic Church. He

break away from the Catholic Church. He broke away from something else.

broke away from something else. >> He broke away from a church that

>> He broke away from a church that institutionally was different than the

institutionally was different than the church that exists today.

church that exists today. >> What church was that that he broke away

>> What church was that that he broke away from?

from? the Catholic the church that the church

the Catholic the church that the church the church that identifies as the

the church that identifies as the Catholic Church.

>> Okay. Okay. Let's go back to Daniel 2. Daniel

Okay. Let's go back to Daniel 2. Daniel 2, there are four kingdoms. What is the

2, there are four kingdoms. What is the fourth kingdom?

fourth kingdom? >> I'm not sure.

>> I'm not sure. >> Okay. Would you agree with me that

>> Okay. Would you agree with me that during the time of the fourth kingdom,

during the time of the fourth kingdom, Christ will set up a a kingdom that will

Christ will set up a a kingdom that will never be destroyed?

never be destroyed? Not sure. I'm going to punt on that

Not sure. I'm going to punt on that because I don't I don't necessarily I

because I don't I don't necessarily I don't Yeah, I'm just going to punt.

don't Yeah, I'm just going to punt. >> It seems like you're not really

>> It seems like you're not really committing to I mean like

committing to I mean like >> I don't I don't want to Well, I don't

>> I don't I don't want to Well, I don't want to I don't want to commit to any

want to I don't want to commit to any particular interpretation made by

particular interpretation made by Latter-day Saints because again, for the

Latter-day Saints because again, for the sake of the debate, I could you the

sake of the debate, I could you the apostasy being a reality is a matter of

apostasy being a reality is a matter of if someone can show the continual

if someone can show the continual existence of an institutional church

existence of an institutional church going all the way back that held the

going all the way back that held the authority of Peter. If there is a

authority of Peter. If there is a biblical prophecy that says Christ is

biblical prophecy that says Christ is going to establish a church and will

going to establish a church and will never be destroyed, wouldn't that meet

never be destroyed, wouldn't that meet that burden? Or why would you have to

that burden? Or why would you have to look to anything after that?

look to anything after that? >> Well, what if that church was the body

>> Well, what if that church was the body of believers?

of believers? >> I'm sorry, that's me.

>> I'm sorry, that's me. >> I would say I would say this. Let me

>> I would say I would say this. Let me answer the question then. The church, if

answer the question then. The church, if in scripture,

in scripture, >> if the church is a body of believers and

>> if the church is a body of believers and he says that it's going to continue, I

he says that it's going to continue, I agree with that. So in John 10 when

agree with that. So in John 10 when Jesus says he has other sheep and he's

Jesus says he has other sheep and he's going to draw them into one flock. So

going to draw them into one flock. So there's one shepherd and one flock. What

there's one shepherd and one flock. What does he mean by that?

does he mean by that? You know I'm

You know I'm I would say that the body of believers

I would say that the body of believers uh that exist

uh that exist in all the world will be brought into

in all the world will be brought into one flock.

one flock. But I don't believe

But I don't believe >> sorry you're you're saying this is a

>> sorry you're you're saying this is a future event and this is not something

future event and this is not something he's going to do during his incarnation.

he's going to do during his incarnation. >> I don't know. Okay. 1 Timothy 3, when

>> I don't know. Okay. 1 Timothy 3, when the church is described as a pillar and

the church is described as a pillar and foundation of truth and St. Paul tells

foundation of truth and St. Paul tells Timothy if he wants to know how to

Timothy if he wants to know how to behave to look to that church. Is that

behave to look to that church. Is that an amorphous body of believers or is

an amorphous body of believers or is that an institutional church?

that an institutional church? >> Uh well, I think the word church can be

>> Uh well, I think the word church can be used in in different senses. It can be

used in in different senses. It can be used to describe the body of believers.

used to describe the body of believers. For example, in the word in Greek for

For example, in the word in Greek for church that they use is an assembly.

church that they use is an assembly. >> Yeah. It's it's it's it's a body of

>> Yeah. It's it's it's it's a body of believers, not an institution. But it

believers, not an institution. But it can refer to an institution to be fair.

can refer to an institution to be fair. And I think that and I do believe that

And I think that and I do believe that the institution of the church existed at

the institution of the church existed at the time of

the time of >> 15.

>> 15. >> I think it was probably the

>> I think it was probably the institutional church that existed at

institutional church that existed at that time which was connected to Peter.

that time which was connected to Peter. >> So in your understanding of the body of

>> So in your understanding of the body of believers is this assembly a visible

believers is this assembly a visible community of believers or is it just

community of believers or is it just every believer wherever they may be?

every believer wherever they may be? >> It's a good question. Um, I would say

>> It's a good question. Um, I would say that it's every person who desires

that it's every person who desires light and truth and beauty and goodness

light and truth and beauty and goodness because Christ is the

because Christ is the it that Christ is the manifestation of

it that Christ is the manifestation of that in the world. And so they without

that in the world. And so they without knowing it are seeking God. And so all

knowing it are seeking God. And so all people,

people, >> how are they assembled? If they're an

>> how are they assembled? If they're an assembly, how are they assembled? Like

assembly, how are they assembled? Like if you said all left-handed people are

if you said all left-handed people are an assembly, I wouldn't know what that

an assembly, I wouldn't know what that means. So what do you mean when you say

means. So what do you mean when you say everyone seeking after Christ is somehow

everyone seeking after Christ is somehow an eklesia, a church and a symbol?

an eklesia, a church and a symbol? >> H I think that is a good question. Um I

>> H I think that is a good question. Um I would say off the top of my head

would say off the top of my head something like um when people gather

something like um when people gather together

together to do good and to lifting like if if a

to do good and to lifting like if if a group of people in I don't know let's

group of people in I don't know let's say China get together and do something

say China get together and do something good and beautiful and true to lift

good and beautiful and true to lift other people. I would consider that an

other people. I would consider that an assembly in a sense the church of

assembly in a sense the church of Christ.

Christ. >> Okay. Kind of the two or three gathered

>> Okay. Kind of the two or three gathered in my name. There I am. That kind of

in my name. There I am. That kind of model. Okay. In Matthew 18, when you're

model. Okay. In Matthew 18, when you're to confront a brother, you're to go to

to confront a brother, you're to go to him one-on-one and then after that

him one-on-one and then after that you're to go two or three. And if he

you're to go two or three. And if he doesn't listen to you, then you go to

doesn't listen to you, then you go to the church who adjudicates it. Is that

the church who adjudicates it. Is that an amorphous body of believers or is

an amorphous body of believers or is that an institutional?

that an institutional? >> No, in that case the like I like I

>> No, in that case the like I like I already said, sometimes it does refer to

already said, sometimes it does refer to an institution. asking which times are

an institution. asking which times are which

which >> at at that time an institution did exist

>> at at that time an institution did exist and and that's that institution helps to

and and that's that institution helps to guide the body of believers.

guide the body of believers. >> Where are some passages where it talks

>> Where are some passages where it talks about there being two churches, one

about there being two churches, one institutional, one assembly.

institutional, one assembly. >> Um well the meaning of the word uh

>> Um well the meaning of the word uh ecclesia as you said that the Greek term

ecclesia as you said that the Greek term is not about an institution.

is not about an institution. >> But just say in Matthew 18 it is about

>> But just say in Matthew 18 it is about an institution.

an institution. >> No, it can be used in either way.

>> No, it can be used in either way. Sometimes words can be used in two

Sometimes words can be used in two senses. Where do we find anywhere in the

senses. Where do we find anywhere in the New Testament that distinguishes those

New Testament that distinguishes those two senses

two senses >> in the context you already brought up?

>> in the context you already brought up? Sometimes it's clear that they're

Sometimes it's clear that they're referring to an institution. Sometimes

referring to an institution. Sometimes it's clear that they're referring to a

it's clear that they're referring to a body of believers.

body of believers. >> Okay. So, when St. Paul describes the

>> Okay. So, when St. Paul describes the church as a body of Christ, is that just

church as a body of Christ, is that just body of believers or is there an

body of believers or is there an institutional reality there? Um, I would

institutional reality there? Um, I would say kind of as you you've said tonight,

say kind of as you you've said tonight, um, that the it is the body of believers

um, that the it is the body of believers make up the essence of it, but the

make up the essence of it, but the fullness of it is manifest when you have

fullness of it is manifest when you have the body of believers guided by the

the body of believers guided by the fullness of the institution.

fullness of the institution. >> Okay. So, you would agree that the body

>> Okay. So, you would agree that the body of Christ is on earth and growing as the

of Christ is on earth and growing as the church for 2,000 years.

church for 2,000 years. >> I would say that as as it it says that

>> I would say that as as it it says that God is working through all peoples of

God is working through all peoples of various religions. We I don't believe

various religions. We I don't believe that there is no salvation outside of

that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. I I don't believe

the Catholic Church. I I don't believe that there is no salvation outside of

that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church as is taught by the

the Catholic Church as is taught by the Catholic Church.

Catholic Church. >> Okay. In the in the groups that Joseph

>> Okay. In the in the groups that Joseph Smith mentioned there about God working

Smith mentioned there about God working through people, doesn't he mention

through people, doesn't he mention non-Christians like Jews?

non-Christians like Jews? >> Mhm.

>> Mhm. >> So would you say they're part of the

>> So would you say they're part of the church then?

church then? >> If they're seeking light, goodness,

>> If they're seeking light, goodness, truth, and beauty to the best of their

truth, and beauty to the best of their ability with the knowledge that they

ability with the knowledge that they have, then they are. So you think when

have, then they are. So you think when Joseph Smith says God works through the

Joseph Smith says God works through the Jewish people, this means the same thing

Jewish people, this means the same thing as when the New Testament talks about

as when the New Testament talks about the church.

the church. >> In a sense, yes. But in a sense, no. It

>> In a sense, yes. But in a sense, no. It depends on if you're talking if they're

depends on if you're talking if they're part of the institution or not. I

part of the institution or not. I actually believe that the Catholic

actually believe that the Catholic Church and the good faithful Catholics

Church and the good faithful Catholics in this room that you guys are part of

in this room that you guys are part of the church in that sense is the body of

the church in that sense is the body of sincere seekers and believers. And our

sincere seekers and believers. And our invitation to you is to come and see and

invitation to you is to come and see and get to know us because our belief is

get to know us because our belief is that the institution which is what we're

that the institution which is what we're talking about.

talking about. >> Okay. I got it.

>> Okay. I got it. >> It fullness needs to be restored.

>> It fullness needs to be restored. >> Would could could you clarify does Amos

>> Would could could you clarify does Amos 8 refer to Samaria or does it refer to

8 refer to Samaria or does it refer to the early Christians?

the early Christians? >> I actually think you made a good point

>> I actually think you made a good point on that. I actually think that the the

on that. I actually think that the the early I I don't think that's a good

early I I don't think that's a good scripture to use to argue for an

scripture to use to argue for an >> apost. Are there any passages you have

>> apost. Are there any passages you have raised this evening that foretell a

raised this evening that foretell a great apostasy? I haven't brought up any

great apostasy? I haven't brought up any because I don't I'm not making an

because I don't I'm not making an argument from for the apostasy from

argument from for the apostasy from scripture. I'm making the argument clear

scripture. I'm making the argument clear apostasy in scripture if such a thing

apostasy in scripture if such a thing were to happen.

were to happen. >> Um

>> Um perhaps and I think that there are

perhaps and I think that there are verses that can be argued that way

verses that can be argued that way though the specific ones I have mixed

though the specific ones I have mixed opinions on. I think I would let other

opinions on. I think I would let other Latter-day Saints that are more

Latter-day Saints that are more scripturally, you know, minded. For me,

scripturally, you know, minded. For me, I'm looking just at the plain history.

I'm looking just at the plain history. And the plain history indicates that

And the plain history indicates that there's no institution that that has a

there's no institution that that has a continuous existence.

continuous existence. >> The plain history that the church began

>> The plain history that the church began in 1965.

in 1965. >> Well,

>> Well, the papacy as defined in Vatican 1

the papacy as defined in Vatican 1 didn't exist

didn't exist >> until 1965.

>> until 1965. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. That was a

>> No, no, no, no, no, no. That was a Believe me, Joe. I'm glad that you're

Believe me, Joe. I'm glad that you're not part of the pre-1965 church because

not part of the pre-1965 church because I think we all can agree that there were

I think we all can agree that there were some reforms needed in the Catholic

some reforms needed in the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

Church in the Middle Ages. >> Okay. So if you say the Catholic Church

>> Okay. So if you say the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, doesn't that

in the Middle Ages, doesn't that contradict the idea the Catholic Church

contradict the idea the Catholic Church didn't exist until 1870?

>> Okay. Okay. >> It sounds like we kind of

>> It sounds like we kind of >> So here's the problem is that is that

>> So here's the problem is that is that the the definition of the Catholic

the the definition of the Catholic Church, if I don't understand what you

Church, if I don't understand what you mean by the essence of it, the reality

mean by the essence of it, the reality is that the papal institution has been

is that the papal institution has been evolving. The doctrines of the Catholic

evolving. The doctrines of the Catholic faith, even its dogmas are evolving over

faith, even its dogmas are evolving over time. That's clear in the history. And

time. That's clear in the history. And so it's hard to say when you say, "Well,

so it's hard to say when you say, "Well, when did it begin?" It didn't begin in a

when did it begin?" It didn't begin in a moment. It's been a slow evolution of

moment. It's been a slow evolution of doctrine and dogmas and authority and

doctrine and dogmas and authority and claims over time.

claims over time. I just can't do it.

I just can't do it. >> Would you say the same about the Church

>> Would you say the same about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that there's an evolution and change in

that there's an evolution and change in dogmas like I don't know, Adam God or

dogmas like I don't know, Adam God or plural marriage or whether black people

plural marriage or whether black people can be priests? Maybe the list could go

can be priests? Maybe the list could go on.

on. >> Hey, hey, you could throw out your your

>> Hey, hey, you could throw out your your attacks on Mormonism. All right, let's

attacks on Mormonism. All right, let's just say that it doesn't it isn't

just say that it doesn't it isn't relevant to this debate because if I get

relevant to this debate because if I get sucked into a debate where I'm trying to

sucked into a debate where I'm trying to defend

defend >> I'm trying to test your standard.

>> I'm trying to test your standard. >> It will it will it will take away from

>> It will it will it will take away from this debate because the debate is about

this debate because the debate is about if there is an institution with a

if there is an institution with a continual existence.

continual existence. >> My question is specifically about that.

>> My question is specifically about that. Are you saying that if an institution

Are you saying that if an institution does something new or different that it

does something new or different that it means it's a new institution? Is every

means it's a new institution? Is every time

time >> it depends what the essence what is the

>> it depends what the essence what is the essence of the institution? If the

essence of the institution? If the essence of the institution is the is the

essence of the institution is the is the papacy and its infallible uh universal

papacy and its infallible uh universal jurisdiction,

jurisdiction, then I have to find a time when that

then I have to find a time when that didn't exist.

didn't exist. >> That's our time.

>> That's our time. >> All right. Thank you.

>> All right. Thank you. >> Lively. Okay. So, we're going to turn

>> Lively. Okay. So, we're going to turn now to Q&A and then after Q&A for about

now to Q&A and then after Q&A for about half an hour, we're going to do closing

half an hour, we're going to do closing statements. So, let's do let's do

statements. So, let's do let's do question, answer, move on.

question, answer, move on. >> All right. So, our first guy is Robert

>> All right. So, our first guy is Robert from Georgia. For who? I forgot.

from Georgia. For who? I forgot. >> For Joe.

>> For Joe. >> For Joe. Here we are. How is it that the

>> For Joe. Here we are. How is it that the Roman Catholic Church can claim an

Roman Catholic Church can claim an unbroken line without authority when

unbroken line without authority when there's documented historical evidence

there's documented historical evidence that number one, there are gaps in that

that number one, there are gaps in that line, sometimes many years. Number two,

line, sometimes many years. Number two, there was a female pope. There were

there was a female pope. There were three at one time there were three folks

three at one time there were three folks who excommunicated each other.

who excommunicated each other. >> Okay.

>> Okay. >> 60-cond response. Good. Good.

>> 60-cond response. Good. Good. >> Um, that question presupposes several

>> Um, that question presupposes several false things. Pope Joe is a medieval

false things. Pope Joe is a medieval joke legend. It's not real. The longest

joke legend. It's not real. The longest gap has been 2 years during which time

gap has been 2 years during which time they were actively seeking to elect a

they were actively seeking to elect a pope. They just couldn't agree. And the

pope. They just couldn't agree. And the fact you have two people claiming to be

fact you have two people claiming to be the pope who aren't doesn't invalidate

the pope who aren't doesn't invalidate the papacy. any Mormon as a Mormon, you

the papacy. any Mormon as a Mormon, you would say the fact that the RLDS exists

would say the fact that the RLDS exists disproves the Mormon Mor. You can have

disproves the Mormon Mor. You can have false things doesn't disprove things.

false things doesn't disprove things. Okay, now we've got Christopher from

Okay, now we've got Christopher from Utah.

Utah. >> How does the Bible's definition, this

>> How does the Bible's definition, this for both of you, how does the Bible's

for both of you, how does the Bible's definition of the church as the body of

definition of the church as the body of Jesus Christ influence your

Jesus Christ influence your understanding of the great apostasy?

understanding of the great apostasy? >> Let's do both. We'll do both.

>> Let's do both. We'll do both. >> Let's do both. Okay. Yeah. I would just

>> Let's do both. Okay. Yeah. I would just say that uh the church is a body of

say that uh the church is a body of believers that that distinguishes

believers that that distinguishes between an institutional apostasy and a

between an institutional apostasy and a an apostasy of all believers everywhere

an apostasy of all believers everywhere which is clearly contradicted in LDS

which is clearly contradicted in LDS scripture. It's just not a valid like if

scripture. It's just not a valid like if if that were the claim that the body of

if that were the claim that the body of believers was entirely I wouldn't

believers was entirely I wouldn't believe it you guys. like that that's an

believe it you guys. like that that's an absurd claim to say that none of the

absurd claim to say that none of the people in history were sincere believers

people in history were sincere believers that were truly seeking Jesus Christ

that were truly seeking Jesus Christ that would be considered a part of the

that would be considered a part of the body of true believers.

body of true believers. >> Oh yeah, I would say very clearly the

>> Oh yeah, I would say very clearly the reason Jesus takes on a body is to

reason Jesus takes on a body is to become incarnate. And so the body of

become incarnate. And so the body of Christ is the visible continuation of

Christ is the visible continuation of the incarnation that God the father is

the incarnation that God the father is spirit as John 4:24 tells us and Jesus

spirit as John 4:24 tells us and Jesus Christ his son has become incarnate has

Christ his son has become incarnate has the word became flesh and dwelt among

the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The inddwelling of God continues in

us. The inddwelling of God continues in a visible way in the body of Christ. 1

a visible way in the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12. And this body of Christ

Corinthians 12. And this body of Christ is structure. It has organization. So

is structure. It has organization. So there's no use trying to pit two

there's no use trying to pit two different churches. One a group of

different churches. One a group of amorphous believers and one the visible

amorphous believers and one the visible church. The visible church is a city on

church. The visible church is a city on a hill. It's a visible society has both

a hill. It's a visible society has both leaders and members. They're all

leaders and members. They're all connected. There may be people who say

connected. There may be people who say they're not part of the body who are

they're not part of the body who are still part of the body. St. Paul

still part of the body. St. Paul addresses that directly but that doesn't

addresses that directly but that doesn't change the fact that the body is still a

change the fact that the body is still a visible structured society.

visible structured society. >> Okay. Matthew from Salt Lake City from

>> Okay. Matthew from Salt Lake City from Jacob.

>> So Jacob you mentioned false doctrine and sin is evidence for the loss of

and sin is evidence for the loss of authority during the great apostasy. If

authority during the great apostasy. If arguably errors like idolatry with Adam

arguably errors like idolatry with Adam God and Electra of Baal uh the

God and Electra of Baal uh the priesthood ban and continuation of

priesthood ban and continuation of believe me after declarations one and

believe me after declarations one and two are not evidence of loss of

two are not evidence of loss of authority in the church of Jesus Christ

authority in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why could similar

of Latter-day Saints. Why could similar errors like ipod veneration and just

errors like ipod veneration and just parties be considered evidence of loss

parties be considered evidence of loss of authority for Rome?

of authority for Rome? >> Okay. So one thing that the Roman church

>> Okay. So one thing that the Roman church does that is very different is that they

does that is very different is that they make infallible claims. their dogmas

make infallible claims. their dogmas that they say are infallible. Such as

that they say are infallible. Such as the bodily assumption of Mary. If they

the bodily assumption of Mary. If they are false, it proves that the teaching

are false, it proves that the teaching office of the papacy is actually false.

office of the papacy is actually false. Its infallibility is invalidated because

Its infallibility is invalidated because we don't hold to an infallible standard

we don't hold to an infallible standard uh in that way. We don't believe that

uh in that way. We don't believe that human beings are can be infallible

human beings are can be infallible because we're mortal fallen creatures.

because we're mortal fallen creatures. Therefore, it's a different comparison.

Therefore, it's a different comparison. So, Catholic dogmas cannot be changed.

So, Catholic dogmas cannot be changed. And the problem is is that it's very

And the problem is is that it's very clear in the historical record that

clear in the historical record that there's all sorts of Catholic dogmas

there's all sorts of Catholic dogmas that have absolutely no record uh

that have absolutely no record uh historically. Um and once you recognize

historically. Um and once you recognize that, then there's only two options.

that, then there's only two options. Either they were revealed,

Either they were revealed, which they say can't happen, or they're

which they say can't happen, or they're making it up.

making it up. >> Okay, here's some more for Joe.

>> Okay, here's some more for Joe. >> Hey, Joe. How you doing?

>> Hey, Joe. How you doing? >> Nice to talk.

>> Nice to talk. >> Oh, that's your question.

Joe, you said the only extra apostle was ever that was ever called was in Acts

ever that was ever called was in Acts one. I assume you're referring to the 12

one. I assume you're referring to the 12 in terms of succession. I mean, St. Paul

in terms of succession. I mean, St. Paul is also apostle.

is also apostle. >> Okay. I was going to ask you that too.

>> Okay. I was going to ask you that too. >> I was going to say I was going to say

>> I was going to say I was going to say then Paul is an apostle is what I was

then Paul is an apostle is what I was going to say. So

going to say. So >> yeah. So that's like what what I was

>> yeah. So that's like what what I was trying to say there and maybe I should

trying to say there and maybe I should have said that more clearly is you see

have said that more clearly is you see the death of some of the apostles in

the death of some of the apostles in Acts and you don't see them replacing

Acts and you don't see them replacing new apostles. So like in James's kill

new apostles. So like in James's kill they don't need another guy to replace

they don't need another guy to replace them. If the core claim is that for it

them. If the core claim is that for it to still be the same church you have to

to still be the same church you have to have an ongoing ministry of the 12

have an ongoing ministry of the 12 apostles. You would expect them to do

apostles. You would expect them to do that and that clearly doesn't happen in

that and that clearly doesn't happen in Acts. As the apostles die, no one even

Acts. As the apostles die, no one even tries to replace them with new apostles

tries to replace them with new apostles because that's not what the Christians

because that's not what the Christians of the first century thought was

of the first century thought was happening. That's a 19th century

happening. That's a 19th century projection back. Not something the

projection back. Not something the Christian first century believed in.

Christian first century believed in. >> Okay, we got Cali from Utah here for

>> Okay, we got Cali from Utah here for Jacob. Also noticeably the only girl in

Jacob. Also noticeably the only girl in the line.

>> She made sure he knew to the front. So questions from Julia.

questions from Julia. >> Uh thank you gentlemen for your

>> Uh thank you gentlemen for your leadership up here and film for your

leadership up here and film for your leadership back here in asking these

leadership back here in asking these questions. Um but as we all know that

questions. Um but as we all know that Christianity exploded partly because of

Christianity exploded partly because of the faith of women in the early church

the faith of women in the early church and still goes today because of our

and still goes today because of our faith as well. So, um we're on the same

faith as well. So, um we're on the same team, right? Um but the question for

team, right? Um but the question for you, Jacob, is um if you reject the

you, Jacob, is um if you reject the institutional authority of the Catholic

institutional authority of the Catholic Church shortly following, uh the death

Church shortly following, uh the death of the apostles, then how can you accept

of the apostles, then how can you accept the Bible that was put together by uh

the Bible that was put together by uh Catholics and adopted by a

Catholics and adopted by a constitutional authority of the Catholic

constitutional authority of the Catholic Church?

Church? >> Good question. So, I don't believe in

>> Good question. So, I don't believe in the Bible because someone told me that

the Bible because someone told me that this is because of who assembled it. I

this is because of who assembled it. I believe in the biblical texts that

believe in the biblical texts that they're authoritative because of who

they're authoritative because of who wrote them.

wrote them. And the people who wrote them had the

And the people who wrote them had the highest levels of authority or or to

highest levels of authority or or to Joe's point, they were people that that

Joe's point, they were people that that the um that were connected to them and

the um that were connected to them and therefore through modern revelation that

therefore through modern revelation that we have today, we can say that these

we have today, we can say that these these were correct records because they

these were correct records because they were close enough to apostolic teachings

were close enough to apostolic teachings that they actually teach what the

that they actually teach what the apostles uh taught. So my view is is the

apostles uh taught. So my view is is the reason that we accept the Bible isn't

reason that we accept the Bible isn't because of who assembled it, but rather

because of who assembled it, but rather of the people who wrote it and modern

of the people who wrote it and modern revelation that says those books are

revelation that says those books are indeed reliable.

indeed reliable. >> Okay, we got Ken from Draco for both.

>> Okay, we got Ken from Draco for both. >> Okay, Jacob, just so you know my

>> Okay, Jacob, just so you know my background quickly, I'm from Kirkland,

background quickly, I'm from Kirkland, Ohio. And for Joe, I was educated by the

Ohio. And for Joe, I was educated by the Jesuits at John Carol University in

Jesuits at John Carol University in Cleveland. Okay. The question is if you

Cleveland. Okay. The question is if you consider a heresy, you have to consider

consider a heresy, you have to consider heresy against what? Uh Irenaeus

heresy against what? Uh Irenaeus in his uh arguments against the uh the

in his uh arguments against the uh the heresies. Uh he was objecting to the

heresies. Uh he was objecting to the Essenes, the elkites, the uh

Essenes, the elkites, the uh Valentinians.

Valentinians. Uh but I could go on others that were

Uh but I could go on others that were past him. Um

past him. Um >> what's the question?

>> what's the question? >> It's coming.

If uh if we look at the uh all of the early Christian churches and you say

early Christian churches and you say that uh it's the church of Jesus Christ

that uh it's the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. When you look at

of latter day saints. When you look at the former day saints, as I really have,

the former day saints, as I really have, if there was a Harris at a uh an

if there was a Harris at a uh an apostasy,

apostasy, there's an argument for that. I argue

there's an argument for that. I argue that the LDS church has not been fully

that the LDS church has not been fully restored or restored at all when you

restored or restored at all when you compare it to the early Christian

compare it to the early Christian church.

church. >> So, what is your what is your question?

>> So, what is your what is your question? Yeah, what is your question?

Yeah, what is your question? >> How would you argue that point? You're

>> How would you argue that point? You're arguing about a heresy, but what about

arguing about a heresy, but what about the lack of the restoration when you

the lack of the restoration when you compare it to the early churches? Do you

compare it to the early churches? Do you know who you're arguing against?

know who you're arguing against? >> Okay. So, I think he's saying that, you

>> Okay. So, I think he's saying that, you know, where are the early Christian

know, where are the early Christian churches teachings uh that existed? Um,

churches teachings uh that existed? Um, this is this could be the problem is

this is this could be the problem is this could be a really really long

this could be a really really long answer, but I'll give an example. So

answer, but I'll give an example. So something that the early Christians

something that the early Christians believed in for example was

believed in for example was subordinationism. That's very clearly in

subordinationism. That's very clearly in the church fathers. It's very clearly

the church fathers. It's very clearly the New Testament standard. Uh the

the New Testament standard. Uh the tradition when you actually look at it

tradition when you actually look at it objectively teaches subordinationism. Uh

objectively teaches subordinationism. Uh meaning that the son is subordinate to

meaning that the son is subordinate to the father. I mean Jesus literally said

the father. I mean Jesus literally said that my father is greater than I. I mean

that my father is greater than I. I mean come on. Uh the other thing that's

come on. Uh the other thing that's really interesting is uh a lot of people

really interesting is uh a lot of people give Latter-day Saints kind of a hard

give Latter-day Saints kind of a hard time because of like temple stuff. Like

time because of like temple stuff. Like where the heck is that? Well, you didn't

where the heck is that? Well, you didn't have in the early church, you didn't

have in the early church, you didn't have the bodily assumption of Mary being

have the bodily assumption of Mary being taught, but you did have baptism for the

taught, but you did have baptism for the dead in the New Testament. You also have

dead in the New Testament. You also have um rituals that were unwritten. St.

um rituals that were unwritten. St. Basil talks about certain ritualistic

Basil talks about certain ritualistic elements uh that were not for people

elements uh that were not for people that weren't to be initiated. What's

that weren't to be initiated. What's really interesting is if you don't have

really interesting is if you don't have some sort of um private unwritten

some sort of um private unwritten precepts and practices according to

precepts and practices according to people like St. Basil, serial of

people like St. Basil, serial of Jerusalem,

Jerusalem, uh you actually are misaligned with the

uh you actually are misaligned with the early church. So a lot of the things

early church. So a lot of the things that people give us trouble for in as

that people give us trouble for in as Latter-day Saints like creation

Latter-day Saints like creation xmateria, those will show up. But as I

xmateria, those will show up. But as I pointed out today, they're the uniquely

pointed out today, they're the uniquely Catholic dogmas like the infallibility

Catholic dogmas like the infallibility of the pope. Those are not found uh in

of the pope. Those are not found uh in the uh in the New Testament and they're

the uh in the New Testament and they're also not found in the earliest church

also not found in the earliest church fathers.

fathers. >> Okay. Uh this guy came a long way from

>> Okay. Uh this guy came a long way from China. This is Joseph for Jam.

China. This is Joseph for Jam. >> So Joe and I have previously mentioned

>> So Joe and I have previously mentioned about the uh split within the latter

about the uh split within the latter saint movement. In fact, today um the

saint movement. In fact, today um the the community group of Christ also

the community group of Christ also claimed that the LDS church is falling

claimed that the LDS church is falling into apostasy. So my question for Jacob

into apostasy. So my question for Jacob is that

is that do you think do you have the full

do you think do you have the full confidence that the church of Jesus

confidence that the church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saint today will not

Christ Latter Day Saint today will not fall into apostasy and why

fall into apostasy and why >> will the church of Jesus Christ of

>> will the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not fall into

Latter-day Saints not fall into apostasy? Um that has been something

apostasy? Um that has been something that has been promised but again because

that has been promised but again because we don't believe in infallibility I

we don't believe in infallibility I can't say that that statement is like

can't say that that statement is like infallibly given. So we don't have that

infallibly given. So we don't have that type of standard. I do believe that the

type of standard. I do believe that the church when you look at the succession

church when you look at the succession crisis that existed. Um who were the

crisis that existed. Um who were the people that led the early church it was

people that led the early church it was the quorum of the twelve apostles and

the quorum of the twelve apostles and after the death of Joseph Smith it was

after the death of Joseph Smith it was the quorum of the twel apostles that

the quorum of the twel apostles that continued the church after him. And so

continued the church after him. And so that seems to fit with the new testament

that seems to fit with the new testament pattern where the others the other

pattern where the others the other breakoff splinter groups from from

breakoff splinter groups from from Joseph uh they didn't have that. And

Joseph uh they didn't have that. And also ultimately I would say the fruits

also ultimately I would say the fruits of the of uh what the uh people who uh

of the of uh what the uh people who uh followed Brigham out west. I mean we're

followed Brigham out west. I mean we're literally living in the valley settled

literally living in the valley settled by those people and uh I'm looking at a

by those people and uh I'm looking at a lot of people are descendants of the

lot of people are descendants of the people who followed him and those are

people who followed him and those are some pretty powerful fruits. And Jesus

some pretty powerful fruits. And Jesus said that you'll know a true prophet. He

said that you'll know a true prophet. He didn't say you'll know them because of

didn't say you'll know them because of their trinitarian formulation. He said

their trinitarian formulation. He said you'll know them by their fruits. And so

you'll know them by their fruits. And so I I that's a spiritual witness to me uh

I I that's a spiritual witness to me uh that that um God was was behind that

that that um God was was behind that move.

move. >> Okay, we got Bonty from Utah.

>> Okay, we got Bonty from Utah. >> Yeah. Also, Latter Day on social media

>> Yeah. Also, Latter Day on social media is shameless right there. Um anyway,

is shameless right there. Um anyway, um in my reading of Acts, I also see two

um in my reading of Acts, I also see two other apostles besides Matias and Paul.

other apostles besides Matias and Paul. Barnabas and James who led the Jerusalem

Barnabas and James who led the Jerusalem Council. Given that and we see the

Council. Given that and we see the apostolic succession only occurs with

apostolic succession only occurs with new apostles being called. Where do we

new apostles being called. Where do we get the indication within the biblical

get the indication within the biblical text either from the apostles or Jesus

text either from the apostles or Jesus himself that the office of apostles ever

himself that the office of apostles ever meant to end and general leadership was

meant to end and general leadership was to go to the bishop?

to go to the bishop? >> Yeah, it's a good question. So in terms

>> Yeah, it's a good question. So in terms of the 12 it's very clear with the

of the 12 it's very clear with the calling of Mias if you don't mind just

calling of Mias if you don't mind just recall

the choice is limited to only those who have

choice is limited to only those who have accompanied from the beginning.

Wherefore of these men which have accompanied with us all the time that

accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptist of John, unto

beginning from the baptist of John, unto that same days he was taken up from us,

that same days he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness

must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. So why are

with us of his resurrection. So why are the apostles sent? An apostle is one who

the apostles sent? An apostle is one who is sent. They're explicitly sent to be

is sent. They're explicitly sent to be witnesses to the resurrection. So anyone

witnesses to the resurrection. So anyone who was not born or was not a witness of

who was not born or was not a witness of the resurrection couldn't be that. Paul

the resurrection couldn't be that. Paul is an apostle in a second sense. He's

is an apostle in a second sense. He's also sent. So there is uh you know

also sent. So there is uh you know apostles like he is also sent. He's not

apostles like he is also sent. He's not one of the 12. So the 12 are a unique

one of the 12. So the 12 are a unique thing. You have people sent anytime. And

thing. You have people sent anytime. And in fact St. Frances talks about how

in fact St. Frances talks about how there's two ways people are sent.

there's two ways people are sent. They're sent out immediately by Christ

They're sent out immediately by Christ or immediately through the church. So if

or immediately through the church. So if you take that loose sense of apostles,

you take that loose sense of apostles, you can talk about Mary Magdalene as

you can talk about Mary Magdalene as apostle the apostles or anyone who sent

apostle the apostles or anyone who sent is like an apostle. But in the capital A

is like an apostle. But in the capital A apostle sent, this means the 12. And

apostle sent, this means the 12. And that is uniquely tied to those uh who

that is uniquely tied to those uh who were witnesses to Christ. Which is why

were witnesses to Christ. Which is why in Luke 22 there are 12 chairs, 12

in Luke 22 there are 12 chairs, 12 thrones in heaven for the 12 apostles.

thrones in heaven for the 12 apostles. This is a unique thing happened to 12.

This is a unique thing happened to 12. And there will never be more than that.

And there will never be more than that. Like Matias is supposedly replacing

Like Matias is supposedly replacing Judas and Peter even quotes the line,

Judas and Peter even quotes the line, let another take his place.

let another take his place. Okay, we got Zen from Utah from Jacob.

Okay, we got Zen from Utah from Jacob. >> All right. Uh, Jacob, if after the first

>> All right. Uh, Jacob, if after the first century a Christian had no institutional

century a Christian had no institutional home and corruption was rampant without

home and corruption was rampant without the institutional home, wouldn't the

the institutional home, wouldn't the transmission of the true faith from God

transmission of the true faith from God die out over time?

die out over time? >> It depends what you mean by the true

>> It depends what you mean by the true faith. I mean, I do think that the body

faith. I mean, I do think that the body of sincere believers, thank thank God,

of sincere believers, thank thank God, uh through institutions that did exist

uh through institutions that did exist anciently did preserve apostolic

anciently did preserve apostolic writings and and they were able to

writings and and they were able to preserve it. Now, there was a

preserve it. Now, there was a combination of preservation and

combination of preservation and corruption that happened throughout that

corruption that happened throughout that history. Just go read the history,

history. Just go read the history, you'll see that. Um, and you have things

you'll see that. Um, and you have things like the Protestant Reformation, which I

like the Protestant Reformation, which I am hugely uh uh uh I think even modern

am hugely uh uh uh I think even modern Catholics have to look back at what was

Catholics have to look back at what was going on in the middle ages and say

going on in the middle ages and say there were need for reforms. So um

there were need for reforms. So um there is a corruption that happens over

there is a corruption that happens over time but the body of believers

time but the body of believers especially through the scriptures were

especially through the scriptures were able to retain um much of the truth

able to retain um much of the truth about the gospel and be able to preserve

about the gospel and be able to preserve the faith and point people towards Jesus

the faith and point people towards Jesus Christ even without the fullness of his

Christ even without the fullness of his institution. uh because unfortunately if

institution. uh because unfortunately if they were to try and restore the

they were to try and restore the fullness of their of the institution by

fullness of their of the institution by centralizing power and jurisdiction

centralizing power and jurisdiction under one person, the ancient world

under one person, the ancient world wasn't so kind to people who had a

wasn't so kind to people who had a growing movement centralized under their

growing movement centralized under their authority. They there were certain

authority. They there were certain institutions that identified as the

institutions that identified as the Catholic Church that would chop off

Catholic Church that would chop off their heads.

their heads. >> Okay, we've got Hayden from Phoenix with

>> Okay, we've got Hayden from Phoenix with a question for Joe. Better watch out.

a question for Joe. Better watch out. He's good. He's friends with Jacob.

He's good. He's friends with Jacob. >> Joe, considering we don't see any New

>> Joe, considering we don't see any New Testament bishops appointing or having

Testament bishops appointing or having the authority to appoint new bishops,

the authority to appoint new bishops, what contemporary evidence would you

what contemporary evidence would you posit that that authority, which was

posit that that authority, which was reserved for the apostles, was given to

reserved for the apostles, was given to any bishop before the death of the last

any bishop before the death of the last apostle?

apostle? >> Yeah, that's a really good question.

>> Yeah, that's a really good question. There's a couple things to note. First,

There's a couple things to note. First, you do have the setup in like 1 Timothy

you do have the setup in like 1 Timothy 2 1-2 where Timothy Paul tells Timothy

2 1-2 where Timothy Paul tells Timothy to instruct the doctrine like gives the

to instruct the doctrine like gives the the doctrine to faith men. He'll teach

the doctrine to faith men. He'll teach it to others. You have a four

it to others. You have a four generational cycle set up there. Paul is

generational cycle set up there. Paul is giving the authority to pass it on to

giving the authority to pass it on to Timothy because it's faithful men who

Timothy because it's faithful men who have this set. You would have also like

have this set. You would have also like if you want to know where the bishops in

if you want to know where the bishops in the early church, one of the saints of

the early church, one of the saints of St. John the apostle is Ignatius of

St. John the apostle is Ignatius of Antio who talks about this and planet at

Antio who talks about this and planet at this remember in 86 Ignatius about 107

this remember in 86 Ignatius about 107 these guys are extremely young if if you

these guys are extremely young if if you pause it a great prophecy even of the

pause it a great prophecy even of the year 100 it's too early and he compares

year 100 it's too early and he compares the setup of bishop priest deacon or

the setup of bishop priest deacon or bishop president deacon to the old

bishop president deacon to the old testament setup high priest priest

testament setup high priest priest Levite so that structure of the

Levite so that structure of the authority of the bishop is set there.

authority of the bishop is set there. And so then you can say, okay, they

And so then you can say, okay, they didn't think they were going to be led

didn't think they were going to be led by successive apostles. They thought as

by successive apostles. They thought as Jeremiah was slain, that the apostles

Jeremiah was slain, that the apostles set up his feet to pass forward. And and

set up his feet to pass forward. And and in 1 42, he explicitly talks about how

in 1 42, he explicitly talks about how the apostles received their authority

the apostles received their authority from Christ and passed on the bishops

from Christ and passed on the bishops and

and >> Okay, we got Braxton from Utah from

>> Okay, we got Braxton from Utah from Jacob. Um so the Mormons claimed that

Jacob. Um so the Mormons claimed that there was a great apostasy for the um

there was a great apostasy for the um Catholic Church after the apostles um

Catholic Church after the apostles um died. Um would there have been like a

died. Um would there have been like a great apostasy for the Mormon church

great apostasy for the Mormon church like after um Joseph Smith died or even

like after um Joseph Smith died or even like Brigham Young after their death?

like Brigham Young after their death? >> Well, thanks very much for the question.

>> Well, thanks very much for the question. I appreciate it especially at your age

I appreciate it especially at your age coming to a debate like this. Let's give

coming to a debate like this. Let's give him a hand.

So our belief is that apostolic authority was restored through the

authority was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith and that he gave

prophet Joseph Smith and that he gave that apostolic authority to the leaders

that apostolic authority to the leaders that would follow after him and

that would follow after him and therefore the apostolic authority would

therefore the apostolic authority would have continued in the leaders who had

have continued in the leaders who had received that apostolic authority.

received that apostolic authority. >> Okay, we've got Tucker from Utah.

>> Okay, we've got Tucker from Utah. Another one for both. Tucker,

Another one for both. Tucker, >> what is the best argument that you're

>> what is the best argument that you're surprised you're surprised your opponent

surprised you're surprised your opponent hasn't made?

hasn't made? I thought we were going to have a lot

I thought we were going to have a lot more talk about the trinity or not

more talk about the trinity or not creation of Helio. So, I spent days

creation of Helio. So, I spent days preparing for that and he mentioned it

preparing for that and he mentioned it to the first time two weeks ago.

to the first time two weeks ago. >> Um,

>> Um, what was the one? There was one uh that

what was the one? There was one uh that Joe, what was the one that I was

Joe, what was the one that I was preparing for that you you didn't do? It

preparing for that you you didn't do? It was Now, now to be fair,

was Now, now to be fair, Joe has made videos and done a lot of

Joe has made videos and done a lot of stuff on this topic. And so I I actually

stuff on this topic. And so I I actually kind of wish we almost we would have Joe

kind of wish we almost we would have Joe would have come and like asked me a

would have come and like asked me a little bit more about my arguments

little bit more about my arguments beforehand. I think that could have

beforehand. I think that could have helped improve some of it. But um I

helped improve some of it. But um I would say that

would say that um

um he didn't bring up the argument from

he didn't bring up the argument from where is it?

where is it? um from Irenaeus for example, Erynaeus

um from Irenaeus for example, Erynaeus makes uh he says that the bishop of Rome

makes uh he says that the bishop of Rome presides in love which is another

presides in love which is another indicator or is Ignatius. Did I say?

indicator or is Ignatius. Did I say? >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I meant Ignatius.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I meant Ignatius. Ignatius. And Ignatius is very early.

Ignatius. And Ignatius is very early. Ignatius is like the early 100s. So I'm

Ignatius is like the early 100s. So I'm surprised he didn't bring that one up.

surprised he didn't bring that one up. >> All right. So we've got Jacob Chapman

>> All right. So we've got Jacob Chapman from Utah for Jacob.

from Utah for Jacob. In Joseph Smith's account of the first

In Joseph Smith's account of the first vision, the Lord told him that all the

vision, the Lord told him that all the creeds of the existing Christian sects

creeds of the existing Christian sects were an abomination in his sight. So I'm

were an abomination in his sight. So I'm curious, what is it about the apostles

curious, what is it about the apostles creed or the nyine creed that would fail

creed or the nyine creed that would fail to guide a Latter-day Saint or a creedle

to guide a Latter-day Saint or a creedle Christian in a right relationship with

Christian in a right relationship with God? What does God find abominable in

God? What does God find abominable in these creeds?

these creeds? >> Yeah. So I actually I I want to do two

>> Yeah. So I actually I I want to do two things. First of all, I want to deny the

things. First of all, I want to deny the idea that we say that all of those

idea that we say that all of those professors are like evil and corrupt.

professors are like evil and corrupt. Like I will deny that. I will affirm

Like I will deny that. I will affirm 100% that the creeds that are being

100% that the creeds that are being referred to in that are an abomination.

referred to in that are an abomination. Like I'll say that boldly because but

Like I'll say that boldly because but what's really funny is this. When it

what's really funny is this. When it comes to nyine creed, I agree with 95%

comes to nyine creed, I agree with 95% of it.

of it. It's that little bit about

It's that little bit about consubstantial with the father and the

consubstantial with the father and the creation of God as a separate

creation of God as a separate ontological type of being from humans.

ontological type of being from humans. What that does is it fundamentally

What that does is it fundamentally ruptures

ruptures your relationship to God because it

your relationship to God because it makes you think that God is not your

makes you think that God is not your father. Okay? Our radical claim as

father. Okay? Our radical claim as Latter- Day Saints, you want to hear it?

Latter- Day Saints, you want to hear it? It's really radical. Every single one of

It's really radical. Every single one of you in this room are children of God.

you in this room are children of God. That's it.

That's it. Because in the creedle tradition, you

Because in the creedle tradition, you guys are not his children. You are

guys are not his children. You are creatures.

creatures. Okay? And that's a big difference. We

Okay? And that's a big difference. We believe that you can be as it says in

believe that you can be as it says in the Bible, joint hes with Christ. And as

the Bible, joint hes with Christ. And as Revelation says that you can as a joint

Revelation says that you can as a joint heir, sit with him on his throne because

heir, sit with him on his throne because you are a div your spirit is ultimately

you are a div your spirit is ultimately divine because you are a child of God.

divine because you are a child of God. And that's a doctrine that when it's

And that's a doctrine that when it's severed,

severed, it severs your understanding of yourself

it severs your understanding of yourself and it severs the nature of your

and it severs the nature of your relationship to God. And I think that's

relationship to God. And I think that's abominable. And it's not in the Bible.

abominable. And it's not in the Bible. And it's not a biblical doctrine. And

And it's not a biblical doctrine. And it's something that has caused immense

it's something that has caused immense harm to the way that people view one

harm to the way that people view one another and the way that they view God.

another and the way that they view God. >> Okay. Jeff,

>> Uh just the question touches on kind of your comments kind of on how this works

your comments kind of on how this works or even considering scripture. Uh so in

or even considering scripture. Uh so in 400 AD according to Jerome most of the

400 AD according to Jerome most of the Latins and so in the actual city of area

Latins and so in the actual city of area of Rome itself they believed that uh

of Rome itself they believed that uh Peter directly ordained Clement quoting

Peter directly ordained Clement quoting to the to the office of the apostilhip

to the to the office of the apostilhip and distinctly distinguished between the

and distinctly distinguished between the office of the apostilhip and the chair

office of the apostilhip and the chair of Peter and then the bishop Rick. So

of Peter and then the bishop Rick. So what's the question?

what's the question? >> Which was um overseen by Lionus. So they

>> Which was um overseen by Lionus. So they knew about that. So the question is why

knew about that. So the question is why is it that in 400 AD most of the members

is it that in 400 AD most of the members of the church could even conceive that

of the church could even conceive that that was the proper explanation if it is

that was the proper explanation if it is true that there is no distinction

true that there is no distinction between the office of apostilhip and the

between the office of apostilhip and the office of

office of >> I don't accept any of their their

>> I don't accept any of their their premise there. I don't think that

premise there. I don't think that there's no distinction between apostle

there's no distinction between apostle and bishop. I've been arguing an

and bishop. I've been arguing an opposite.

opposite. >> No, sorry. Sorry. We're not doing we're

>> No, sorry. Sorry. We're not doing we're not doing follow.

not doing follow. >> Yeah. So, you can again you can use the

>> Yeah. So, you can again you can use the term apostle to mean one sense. There is

term apostle to mean one sense. There is a stricter sense of apostle being you

a stricter sense of apostle being you about to 12. But it's very clear that

about to 12. But it's very clear that there is a succession of fishes. And we

there is a succession of fishes. And we have tons of evidence not just from the

have tons of evidence not just from the second century but from the first

second century but from the first century about the apostles coming from

century about the apostles coming from anointing fishes. And you know how many

anointing fishes. And you know how many people talk about, oh, we were supposed

people talk about, oh, we were supposed to have an apostle and suddenly the line

to have an apostle and suddenly the line of apostles died out and we think we're

of apostles died out and we think we're need another one? Nobody. Which feels

need another one? Nobody. Which feels like the kind of thing you might mention

like the kind of thing you might mention like, hey, we need to have 12 apostles

like, hey, we need to have 12 apostles and somehow we're not able to do that

and somehow we're not able to do that anymore. Nobody even like jot it in

anymore. Nobody even like jot it in their journal. Like, hey, apostles just

their journal. Like, hey, apostles just stopped being a thing today. I don't

stopped being a thing today. I don't know what happened.

know what happened. >> Okay. Uh, now we've got Trevor from Salt

>> Okay. Uh, now we've got Trevor from Salt Lake City with a question for Jacob.

Lake City with a question for Jacob. Also, I've instructed everybody in the

Also, I've instructed everybody in the line to keep it to eight lines on an

line to keep it to eight lines on an iPhone with your permission. Will that

iPhone with your permission. Will that work, Cammy?

work, Cammy? >> Okay.

>> Okay. >> Okay. Awesome. So, we've got eight lines

>> Okay. Awesome. So, we've got eight lines on an iPhone for Trevor. Right. So my

on an iPhone for Trevor. Right. So my question is by what standard is Catholic

question is by what standard is Catholic teaching and tradition development over

teaching and tradition development over time such as the papacy and what

time such as the papacy and what happened in the 1960s how is that

happened in the 1960s how is that apostasy while LDS doctrinal reversal is

apostasy while LDS doctrinal reversal is not

not >> by what standard?

>> by what standard? >> By the standard of infallibility so if I

>> By the standard of infallibility so if I pronounce a doctrine and and also you

pronounce a doctrine and and also you have to recognize that within the latter

have to recognize that within the latter day saint tradition there's a difference

day saint tradition there's a difference between doctrine and practice. Can

between doctrine and practice. Can practice change? Of course. Can uh

practice change? Of course. Can uh explanations of doctrine change? Of

explanations of doctrine change? Of course. Um,

course. Um, however, there's something that's

however, there's something that's different within the Catholic faith is

different within the Catholic faith is that certain dogmas are pronounced

that certain dogmas are pronounced dogmatically as infallible, such as the

dogmatically as infallible, such as the bodily assumption of Mary, such as the

bodily assumption of Mary, such as the infallibility of the pope and his

infallibility of the pope and his universal jurisdiction. When these

universal jurisdiction. When these things are pronounced infallibly, it

things are pronounced infallibly, it means that if they are false, then the

means that if they are false, then the entire infallible teaching office at the

entire infallible teaching office at the core of the Catholic claim falls apart.

core of the Catholic claim falls apart. And all I'm arguing tonight is that when

And all I'm arguing tonight is that when you look at the history, the history

you look at the history, the history does not support the apostolic origins

does not support the apostolic origins of these dogmas. And so I'm doing an

of these dogmas. And so I'm doing an internal critique. I'm critiquing

internal critique. I'm critiquing Catholicism by its own standard, saying

Catholicism by its own standard, saying that this is infallible.

that this is infallible. And so ultimately, if those things

And so ultimately, if those things aren't historical and they can't be

aren't historical and they can't be given by revelation,

given by revelation, well then we're stuck with with the fact

well then we're stuck with with the fact that infallible claims that have been

that infallible claims that have been made are false, such as the claim that

made are false, such as the claim that the assumption, bodily assumption of

the assumption, bodily assumption of Mary is apostolic in origin.

Mary is apostolic in origin. >> Okay, we got William from Utah for Joe.

>> Okay, we got William from Utah for Joe. >> It's actually for both. Um, so can

>> It's actually for both. Um, so can either of you point to somewhere in the

either of you point to somewhere in the Bible that shows Christ protecting his

Bible that shows Christ protecting his church or a portion of his church and

church or a portion of his church and what that would imply for the large

what that would imply for the large church overall? And I'm thinking of

church overall? And I'm thinking of Paul.

Paul. >> Yeah, there's actually several different

>> Yeah, there's actually several different places. So when Paul goes to persecute

places. So when Paul goes to persecute the church, Jesus appears to him on the

the church, Jesus appears to him on the road to Damascus and says, "Saul, Saul,

road to Damascus and says, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" His

why are you persecuting me?" His identification with the church is so

identification with the church is so profound and the attack in the church is

profound and the attack in the church is an attack on Christ which is what Paul

an attack on Christ which is what Paul can say in Ephesians 1:23 that the

can say in Ephesians 1:23 that the church is the fullness of Christ and

church is the fullness of Christ and also his bride his loss of his body. But

also his bride his loss of his body. But Jesus makes three specific promises that

Jesus makes three specific promises that I think are worth remembering. Number

I think are worth remembering. Number one in Matthew 28:20 he tells us he'll

one in Matthew 28:20 he tells us he'll be with us until the end of the age. Two

be with us until the end of the age. Two at the last supper read John 14 to John

at the last supper read John 14 to John 16 he talks about sending the spirit of

16 he talks about sending the spirit of truth to be with us and dwell with us

truth to be with us and dwell with us forever. And number three, he promises

forever. And number three, he promises the spirit of truth will lead the church

the spirit of truth will lead the church into the fullness of truth. And I would

into the fullness of truth. And I would suggest you cannot claim that the Holy

suggest you cannot claim that the Holy Spirit is leading the church into the

Spirit is leading the church into the fullness of truth and that everything

fullness of truth and that everything produced by that church is abominable

produced by that church is abominable grace. Like those two claims cannot both

grace. Like those two claims cannot both be true. One of them is found in the

be true. One of them is found in the Bible and one is not.

Bible and one is not. >> Jacob, did you It was for It was for

>> Jacob, did you It was for It was for both.

both. >> Oh, okay. It was both.

>> Oh, okay. It was both. >> Okay. I uh to that I'll pass on that

>> Okay. I uh to that I'll pass on that question. I just think I'd rather I'd

question. I just think I'd rather I'd rather just go to the next one,

rather just go to the next one, honestly.

honestly. >> Okay, we've got Arin from Utah for

>> Okay, we've got Arin from Utah for Jacob.

Jacob. Joe mentioned the king of growth

Joe mentioned the king of growth parables in Matthew 13. Do you agree

parables in Matthew 13. Do you agree with Joseph Smith that the parable of

with Joseph Smith that the parable of the mustard seed had reference to the

the mustard seed had reference to the church of the latter days that the

church of the latter days that the mustard seed itself refers to the Book

mustard seed itself refers to the Book of Mormon? And what relevance do you see

of Mormon? And what relevance do you see if any to the um kingdom growth parables

if any to the um kingdom growth parables for the question of the great apostasy?

for the question of the great apostasy? >> Perfect. Well um one I would say first

>> Perfect. Well um one I would say first of all again to the relevance of the

of all again to the relevance of the debate if everything Joseph said was

debate if everything Joseph said was false that doesn't claim that there

false that doesn't claim that there wasn't an apostasy. However, to defend

wasn't an apostasy. However, to defend what Joseph had said, I do believe that

what Joseph had said, I do believe that the mustard seed was growing,

the mustard seed was growing, by the way, through Protestantism,

by the way, through Protestantism, through Catholicism, through various

through Catholicism, through various sort of means, and that but that its

sort of means, and that but that its fullest expression, the fullness of what

fullest expression, the fullness of what God has revealed is restored to the

God has revealed is restored to the earth through the Church of Jesus Christ

earth through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And that the Book

of Latter-day Saints. And that the Book of Mormon is part of that process of

of Mormon is part of that process of growing the mustard seed into its

growing the mustard seed into its fullest capacity. And so, um, yeah, I

fullest capacity. And so, um, yeah, I would say that I think that's a

would say that I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing thing to

perfectly reasonable thing thing to think if you don't presuppose that

think if you don't presuppose that Joseph was a liar.

Joseph was a liar. >> All right, so we have about 2 minutes

>> All right, so we have about 2 minutes left of our Q&A, so I really apologize.

left of our Q&A, so I really apologize. I know you guys have been standing in

I know you guys have been standing in line forever. And we structured this so

line forever. And we structured this so that we could get through as many as

that we could get through as many as possible. Let's get to two more

possible. Let's get to two more questions.

questions. >> Can we negotiate for a third?

>> Three lines on iPhone. William from Arizona. Okay. So my question is for

Arizona. Okay. So my question is for Joe. Why shouldn't you consider James

Joe. Why shouldn't you consider James the brother of Jesus an apostle given

the brother of Jesus an apostle given that Paul considers him an apostle and

that Paul considers him an apostle and his leadership of the Jerusalem council?

his leadership of the Jerusalem council? >> So there's a big question on which

>> So there's a big question on which there's a bunch of different people

there's a bunch of different people named James. And so yeah so James called

named James. And so yeah so James called the brother of the Lord. We would say

the brother of the Lord. We would say he's one of the he's one of his but he

he's one of the he's one of his but he got a literal biological half brother.

got a literal biological half brother. He is a cousin. that the word adulthos

He is a cousin. that the word adulthos in Greek is used to refer to a wide

in Greek is used to refer to a wide variety of relationships like in the Old

variety of relationships like in the Old Testament Lot and uh Abraham are

Testament Lot and uh Abraham are referred to as Adelf even though they're

referred to as Adelf even though they're uncle and nephew but this is a relative

uncle and nephew but this is a relative of Jesus and a relative of Jew who we

of Jesus and a relative of Jew who we would say probably one of the 12 but

would say probably one of the 12 but unfortunately there's a bunch of people

unfortunately there's a bunch of people named James in the New Testament and

named James in the New Testament and they're now distinguished as the rich

they're now distinguished as the rich James in France.

James in France. >> All right, last question.

>> All right, last question. >> Last question. Okay. And we've got Jacob

>> Last question. Okay. And we've got Jacob from Salt Lake City for both actually.

from Salt Lake City for both actually. >> Okay.

>> Okay. >> All right. So my question is similar to

>> All right. So my question is similar to the way prophet Samuel if uh Joseph

the way prophet Samuel if uh Joseph Smith were to receive revelation from

Smith were to receive revelation from God that the Catholic Church was correct

God that the Catholic Church was correct or the true church um everything being

or the true church um everything being the same as far as the Book of Mormon

the same as far as the Book of Mormon and everything like that being revealed.

and everything like that being revealed. Um how and if God told Joseph to be the

Um how and if God told Joseph to be the next home or to prepare to be the next

next home or to prepare to be the next pope uh how far would he get to that

pope uh how far would he get to that office?

office? >> Not not very far. We explicitly believe

>> Not not very far. We explicitly believe the revelation brought its fullness in

the revelation brought its fullness in Jesus Christ. And there's no new

Jesus Christ. And there's no new revelation after the first century

revelation after the first century because the whole story is pointing all

because the whole story is pointing all throughout the Old Testament is pointing

throughout the Old Testament is pointing to a prophet like Moses the world. And

to a prophet like Moses the world. And in more explicit, more explicit

in more explicit, more explicit messianic prophecies and it's even like

messianic prophecies and it's even like Genesis 3:15 with the fall. There is at

Genesis 3:15 with the fall. There is at the moment of the fall the promises of

the moment of the fall the promises of virgin birth that the seed of a woman

virgin birth that the seed of a woman was crunched to the head of the serpent.

was crunched to the head of the serpent. The whole story is going to be Jesus

The whole story is going to be Jesus Christ's incarnation, death,

Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection, glorification. And so

resurrection, glorification. And so there is no further public revelation

there is no further public revelation because all of the thesis of Lee have

because all of the thesis of Lee have you might still receive some guidance

you might still receive some guidance individually. Like we still believe God

individually. Like we still believe God appears to people. He talks to people,

appears to people. He talks to people, but it's not scripture. You might just

but it's not scripture. You might just talk to you in prayer. He might appear

talk to you in prayer. He might appear to you visibly. He might speak to your

to you visibly. He might speak to your heart. But this isn't public revelation.

heart. But this isn't public revelation. This isn't just him you. But you can

This isn't just him you. But you can still have a relationship with God where

still have a relationship with God where you talk to him and he talks to you. It

you talk to him and he talks to you. It doesn't become a book of Bible.

doesn't become a book of Bible. >> Okay. And and my response to that,

>> Okay. And and my response to that, obviously we have a different point of

obviously we have a different point of view considering that Peter received new

view considering that Peter received new binding public revelation after the

binding public revelation after the ascension of Jesus Christ.

ascension of Jesus Christ. >> We are now moving to closing statements.

>> We are now moving to closing statements. Jacob, you've got five minutes for your

Jacob, you've got five minutes for your closing statement. Come up

closing statement. Come up >> here. Get it.

>> here. Get it. All right.

All right. So, let's review tonight's debate. Um,

debate. Um, here's the thing.

here's the thing. Latter-day Saints believe in an

Latter-day Saints believe in an institutional apostasy. Now,

institutional apostasy. Now, that's what we claim, but I don't even

that's what we claim, but I don't even need to be a Latter-day Saint to make

need to be a Latter-day Saint to make that claim. If I were not a Latter-day

that claim. If I were not a Latter-day Saint, I would still believe in a great

Saint, I would still believe in a great apostasy because that is simply what the

apostasy because that is simply what the history shows. And what do I mean by a

history shows. And what do I mean by a great apostasy? I don't mean that the

great apostasy? I don't mean that the bride of Christ died. See, one of the

bride of Christ died. See, one of the problems in this debate is that Joe just

problems in this debate is that Joe just didn't understand what we actually

didn't understand what we actually believe about it, which is, by the way,

believe about it, which is, by the way, a very common thing that we as Latter-

a very common thing that we as Latter- Day Saints have to deal with.

Day Saints have to deal with. One of the things I want to invite

One of the things I want to invite everyone here today is to avoid the

everyone here today is to avoid the mistake that Joe made and actually take

mistake that Joe made and actually take the time to get to know us.

the time to get to know us. Actually get to know what we really

Actually get to know what we really believe about things like the great

believe about things like the great apostasy. We believe in an institutional

apostasy. We believe in an institutional apostasy, a loss of the fullness of

apostasy, a loss of the fullness of apostolic authority to guide the people

apostolic authority to guide the people of God through revelation. And because

of God through revelation. And because of that, there was corruption of the

of that, there was corruption of the doctrines in the church.

doctrines in the church. Okay? We don't believe that all

Okay? We don't believe that all believers were terrible people and that

believers were terrible people and that you guys are all wicked and I know that

you guys are all wicked and I know that your pastors and other people will tell

your pastors and other people will tell you that and they'll poison you against

you that and they'll poison you against us, but we don't see you as our enemies

us, but we don't see you as our enemies that we don't like. Okay?

The reality is is that the bride of Christ, the kingdom of God on earth is

Christ, the kingdom of God on earth is bigger than the Roman papacy.

Our church teaches the following. It says one of the uh it said God is using

says one of the uh it said God is using and I'm quoting more than one people to

and I'm quoting more than one people to accomplish his great and marvelous work.

accomplish his great and marvelous work. He is using the Catholic, the Protestant

He is using the Catholic, the Protestant and the Jew and truth is scattered

and the Jew and truth is scattered amongst all churches.

amongst all churches. Our invitation to all is to come and

Our invitation to all is to come and see. Come and see if Christ is at work

see. Come and see if Christ is at work with this people.

Now I have deep respect for Joe. Honestly,

Honestly, Joe is a smart guy. Um, his books I

Joe is a smart guy. Um, his books I would recommend to you read them.

would recommend to you read them. They're very, very good. Um,

They're very, very good. Um, and I do believe the Catholic Church

and I do believe the Catholic Church brings people closer to Christ.

brings people closer to Christ. Catholics, your love for Catholicism is

Catholics, your love for Catholicism is actually well placed.

actually well placed. And here's the good news. We believe you

And here's the good news. We believe you get to keep all of that. All the true

get to keep all of that. All the true things about Catholicism that are

things about Catholicism that are actually true, you get to keep. Gordon

actually true, you get to keep. Gordon B. Hinckley, the president of our

B. Hinckley, the president of our church, said, "You bring with you as

church, said, "You bring with you as much truth as you have, and let us see

much truth as you have, and let us see if we can add to it."

So, come and see. Come and get to know us. Maybe you'll learn something new.

us. Maybe you'll learn something new. And if you don't agree with us, hey,

And if you don't agree with us, hey, maybe you'll at least have a new friend.

maybe you'll at least have a new friend. I've actually had a great time getting

I've actually had a great time getting to know Cameron and Joe over the past

to know Cameron and Joe over the past few days we've hung out together.

few days we've hung out together. Now, I'm not asking for anyone here to

Now, I'm not asking for anyone here to convert to my religion, but I'm hoping

convert to my religion, but I'm hoping that after tonight you might take it a

that after tonight you might take it a little more seriously.

little more seriously. I have heard even from Joe that we are

I have heard even from Joe that we are quote famously nice people. And maybe

quote famously nice people. And maybe that's worth taking seriously

that's worth taking seriously considering that Jesus taught the

considering that Jesus taught the following. By this shall men know that

following. By this shall men know that ye are my disciples if ye have the

ye are my disciples if ye have the proper trinitarian formula. I'm sorry.

proper trinitarian formula. I'm sorry. If ye have love one unto another.

Interestingly, Jesus did not say that there would be no prophets after him. He

there would be no prophets after him. He actually taught quite the opposite.

And he told us how he could recognize those prophets that were from him. You

those prophets that were from him. You know what he said? He said, "A good tree

know what he said? He said, "A good tree can't bring forth bad fruit and a bad

can't bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree can't bring forth good fruit. So by

tree can't bring forth good fruit. So by their fruits ye shall know them."

their fruits ye shall know them." So where does the church of Jesus Christ

So where does the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lead people? Does

of Latter-day Saints lead people? Does it lead people away from Jesus Christ?

it lead people away from Jesus Christ? It does lead you away from certain

It does lead you away from certain incoherent formulations of God.

incoherent formulations of God. But does it lead people away from

But does it lead people away from Christ? I think my religion is best

Christ? I think my religion is best summarized with this verse.

summarized with this verse. And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in

And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, and we

Christ, we preach of Christ, and we prophesy of Christ. so that our

prophesy of Christ. so that our children, my children,

children, my children, may know to what source they may look

may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. And now,

for a remission of their sins. And now, seeing that ye know the light by which

seeing that ye know the light by which you may judge, which is the light of

you may judge, which is the light of Christ, I beseech you that you search

Christ, I beseech you that you search diligently in the light of Christ. And

diligently in the light of Christ. And if you will lay hold upon every good

if you will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly

thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

will be a child of Christ. Now, you might think that the devil

Now, you might think that the devil inspired those words,

inspired those words, but he didn't. And it's manifest in the

but he didn't. And it's manifest in the lives of the people who read them and

lives of the people who read them and live them, and they're your friends and

live them, and they're your friends and neighbors in this very community.

neighbors in this very community. If Latter-day Saints produce good

If Latter-day Saints produce good fruits, perhaps we should consider that

fruits, perhaps we should consider that good fruits come from good roots. So, to

good fruits come from good roots. So, to close, I want to thank Joe. I want to

close, I want to thank Joe. I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas. And I

wish everyone a merry Christmas. And I hope that we all can center our lives

hope that we all can center our lives around Jesus Christ, especially at this

around Jesus Christ, especially at this time of year as the savior of the world.

time of year as the savior of the world. And I, as a member of the Church of

And I, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leave

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leave you my testimony of him that he lives

you my testimony of him that he lives and that he loves you. And as we say in

and that he loves you. And as we say in my church, in the name of Jesus Christ,

my church, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Amen.

All right, our five minute closing from Joe.

Joe. >> Is there a restroom?

>> Is there a restroom? >> He He's leaving. He's He's He He got

>> He He's leaving. He's He's He He got bored. He's like, "I said what I said.

bored. He's like, "I said what I said. I'm out of here. He's He's got to use a

I'm out of here. He's He's got to use a bathroom.

>> When you got to go, you got to go." >> All right. So, thank you all again for

>> All right. So, thank you all again for coming. I think this is such an

coming. I think this is such an important topic. Might even be a self-

important topic. Might even be a self- advocate worth because Jesus Christ came

advocate worth because Jesus Christ came into the world to establish a church. He

into the world to establish a church. He is very clear about that. He doesn't

is very clear about that. He doesn't directly leave behind the book. He does

directly leave behind the book. He does directly leave behind a church. And

directly leave behind a church. And everyone seeking to follow after Jesus

everyone seeking to follow after Jesus Christ should be asking the question

Christ should be asking the question where and what is that church? He gives

where and what is that church? He gives a whole series of descriptions of that

a whole series of descriptions of that church. For instance, as a kingdom, as

church. For instance, as a kingdom, as the household of God, as the temple of

the household of God, as the temple of God, as his body, as his bride, as the

God, as his body, as his bride, as the fullness of him. We see these throughout

fullness of him. We see these throughout the New Testament. And he promises to be

the New Testament. And he promises to be with that church forever. That church is

with that church forever. That church is described as impeller foundation of

described as impeller foundation of truth. We're told if we want to know

truth. We're told if we want to know what to believe, we can go to that

what to believe, we can go to that church. That doesn't sound like an

church. That doesn't sound like an amorphous body of believers somewhere

amorphous body of believers somewhere that no one can identif. The whole point

that no one can identif. The whole point of the church being the body of Christ

of the church being the body of Christ is that you can see it so you can be a

is that you can see it so you can be a member of. And I would like to invite

member of. And I would like to invite all of you to do that. I know you know

all of you to do that. I know you know where it is because you're here.

where it is because you're here. Now, Jacob makes the mistake of arguing

Now, Jacob makes the mistake of arguing about, as he put it in the Q&A, uniquely

about, as he put it in the Q&A, uniquely Catholic doctrines. And the problem with

Catholic doctrines. And the problem with that is even if Catholics were wrong

that is even if Catholics were wrong about every uniquely Catholic doctrine,

about every uniquely Catholic doctrine, there are still the Orthodox and the

there are still the Orthodox and the Cop. And they are still abundant proofs

Cop. And they are still abundant proofs that a great apostasy didn't have

that a great apostasy didn't have because you have between Catholics,

because you have between Catholics, Orthodox, and Cops a 2,000-year shared

Orthodox, and Cops a 2,000-year shared theological tradition that does not

theological tradition that does not match Mormonism on important issues like

match Mormonism on important issues like creation of human. He just mentioned

creation of human. He just mentioned that in the Q&A. But you should know the

that in the Q&A. But you should know the philosophers in the of the time of the

philosophers in the of the time of the early church in the first century,

early church in the first century, second century, the Baptist, the

second century, the Baptist, the aristoilians, the pagans, they believed

aristoilians, the pagans, they believed creation came from matter. But the Jews

creation came from matter. But the Jews and Christians said creation came from

and Christians said creation came from nothing. You see this in the Dead Sea

nothing. You see this in the Dead Sea Scrolls. You see this in places like 2

Scrolls. You see this in places like 2 Matthew 7:28. You see this in Rabbi Gome

Matthew 7:28. You see this in Rabbi Gome and Grant, the one who was the tutor of

and Grant, the one who was the tutor of Paul. And you see in the early Christian

Paul. And you see in the early Christian writings

writings address to the Greeks. This is a

address to the Greeks. This is a Christian belief that directly

Christian belief that directly contradicts the Mormon claim. This is

contradicts the Mormon claim. This is one of many examples where you have a

one of many examples where you have a 2,000-year continuous tradition of the

2,000-year continuous tradition of the physical church teaching something

physical church teaching something clearly. And that is either true or

clearly. And that is either true or false. You can't have it both ways. YOU

false. You can't have it both ways. YOU CAN'T SAY GOD'S SUBVERTING these people.

CAN'T SAY GOD'S SUBVERTING these people. The spirit is guiding them to all truth

The spirit is guiding them to all truth and also they're teaching you a bunch of

and also they're teaching you a bunch of heretical things and they're creeped

heretical things and they're creeped through all of one of those two stories

through all of one of those two stories is true. Joseph Smith tells one of them.

is true. Joseph Smith tells one of them. Jacob tells another one tonight

Jacob tells another one tonight and I would suggest the true story is

and I would suggest the true story is God is in fact at work. Now look to be

God is in fact at work. Now look to be clear God can work through anyone. His

clear God can work through anyone. His point about how God is at work in

point about how God is at work in different peoples does not tell you who

different peoples does not tell you who the true church is. Otherwise you have

the true church is. Otherwise you have to say the true churches the Catholics,

to say the true churches the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews. Obviously

the Protestants, the Jews. Obviously that's not the answer we're looking for.

that's not the answer we're looking for. The church is a visible institution

The church is a visible institution and it has existed for 2,000 years. How

and it has existed for 2,000 years. How do we know? Because you have prophecies

do we know? Because you have prophecies like Daniel 2 that talk about in the

like Daniel 2 that talk about in the reign of the Roman Empire, the kingdom

reign of the Roman Empire, the kingdom will be established. His authority will

will be established. His authority will not be destroyed. It'll not be handed to

not be destroyed. It'll not be handed to another. A great apostasy that says

another. A great apostasy that says there's some good people that the

there's some good people that the authority was lost directly contradicts

authority was lost directly contradicts Daniel 2. WHEN IT SAYS THE AUTHORITY OF

Daniel 2. WHEN IT SAYS THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST and his kingdom will last

CHRIST and his kingdom will last forever, it doesn't just mean there's

forever, it doesn't just mean there's going to be some people who like him

going to be some people who like him forever. It means he's got a kingdom on

forever. It means he's got a kingdom on earth. That's why he comes. And Isaiah

earth. That's why he comes. And Isaiah fortells it. The angel Gabriel fortells

fortells it. The angel Gabriel fortells it in Luke 1. All of the passages, look

it in Luke 1. All of the passages, look at the scriptural links here. When

at the scriptural links here. When asked, Jacob pointed to zero passages

asked, Jacob pointed to zero passages that prefigured a GREAT APOSTASY. ZERO

that prefigured a GREAT APOSTASY. ZERO PASSAGES DESCRIBE A GREAT APOTHEC. NOW,

PASSAGES DESCRIBE A GREAT APOTHEC. NOW, IF HIS STORY IS RIGHT, A GREAT APOTHEASY

IF HIS STORY IS RIGHT, A GREAT APOTHEASY WAS WELL underway even during the

WAS WELL underway even during the apostolic era and nobody mentioned. It's

apostolic era and nobody mentioned. It's not in any of the inspired writing. And

not in any of the inspired writing. And weirdly, it's not even in any of THE

weirdly, it's not even in any of THE UNINSPIRED WRITING.

UNINSPIRED WRITING. NOBODY TALKS ABOUT HEY YOU KNOW 10 YEARS

NOBODY TALKS ABOUT HEY YOU KNOW 10 YEARS AGO we all had apostles and we believed

AGO we all had apostles and we believed that you know we had these temple

that you know we had these temple ceilings and now we believe this totally

ceilings and now we believe this totally DIFFERENT THING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT

DIFFERENT THING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT ALL AND THE SIMPLEST explanation of why

ALL AND THE SIMPLEST explanation of why it doesn't happen at all is because

it doesn't happen at all is because you're not being told the true story in

you're not being told the true story in the church of Jesus Christ I would

the church of Jesus Christ I would encourage you to adjudicate this for

encourage you to adjudicate this for yourself now I've heard a book called

yourself now I've heard a book called the early church but you can go and read

the early church but you can go and read the writings of the early Christians as

the writings of the early Christians as Jacob said by your fruits you will know

Jacob said by your fruits you will know them the early Christians exploded. They

them the early Christians exploded. They don't look like they're teaching

don't look like they're teaching apostasy. Their numbers went up

apostasy. Their numbers went up enormous. They had an incredible

enormous. They had an incredible astonishing rate of growth such that

astonishing rate of growth such that even agnostics like Baran are writing

even agnostics like Baran are writing books on the triumph of Christianity and

books on the triumph of Christianity and explaining you cannot explain it because

explaining you cannot explain it because of Roman position of authority because

of Roman position of authority because it happened before the Romans like the

it happened before the Romans like the Romans converted because Christianity

Romans converted because Christianity won. Christianity didn't win because the

won. Christianity didn't win because the Roman emperor got. It's the other way

Roman emperor got. It's the other way around. Historically, the early

around. Historically, the early Christians are very clear about what

Christians are very clear about what they believe. We can see their spiritual

they believe. We can see their spiritual fruit. And the only reasonable

fruit. And the only reasonable explanation is that the numerous

explanation is that the numerous prophecies saying there will not be a

prophecies saying there will not be a great apostasy are true and there is a

great apostasy are true and there is a visible church for 2,000 years. God

visible church for 2,000 years. God bless you. Bye.

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:The Great Apostasy Debate | Joe Heschmeyer vs Jacob Hansen (Full Debate)