YouTube Transcript:
Jacob Hansen & Kolby Reddish Have a Conversation! w/ Dr. Kyle Beshears

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 discussion analyzing a debate between Jacob Hansen (representing Latter-day Saint claims about the Great Apostasy) and Joe Heshmire (a Catholic apologist), focusing on the nature of religious authority, institutional integrity, and the validity of LDS claims regarding a historical apostasy.

Mind Map

Click to expand

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

Welcome to Mormon Book Reviews at

Evangelical Encounters the Restoration.

And this is a very, very exciting

conversation we're going to have this

morning. It's Saturday morning, January

17th at 10:34 a.m. Eastern time, and

I've got some great people here. Uh

before we get uh before we get started,

I just want to talk about a couple

things. First of all, I just received

more uh Bickerton tonight Book of

Mormons in the mail from evangelist Josh

Gaye, which I have been giving to

bringomite missionaries for the last

year and a half now. And Kai Van Vanluen

of Jesus loves Mormons has also uh given

me uh modern English New Testaments to

also give to the uh missionaries as

well. Also, I've been giving these to

fundamentalist missionaries as well. So,

oh, of course, they're bringites, too.

And so, I wanted to say, Kai, if you're

watching, this is my last New Testament.

Send me some more. Okay. So, and now

they can read these cuz they're modern

English. So, we're excited about that.

Also, just wanted to preview that

actually my uh future co-host here, Kyle

Bashers and I will be interviewing the

author of this uh great book by Grant

Underwood, Latter-day Saint theology

among Christian theologies. Again, I

think this is an important book

published by an evangelical publisher.

And I just wanted to say I've never done

this before, but I have to tell you, I

am somebody who's left a lot of money on

the table with this channel. And I'm I'm

telling you right now, this is not

Priestcraft and I'm not making any money

other than just getting a nice bottle,

but this is a uh hydrogen infused water.

So, what it does is it actually puts

hydrogen into your water. And it's I

have to tell you after two weeks of

using this bottle of this this water,

I'm feeling energy levels. And that's

one of the things they say that's going

to have. So, I actually just partnered

up and I'm going to provide a link in

here. It's and you'll be supporting a

local business in Spanish, Utah. This

Echo Water is hydrogen infused. So,

those of you who are uh into uh exercise

and what and health and this also helps

with gut health, I have noticed a

difference. So, I can say that this

seems to work and so I'll have links in

the description and you get 10% off.

Okay, enough of that stuff. Okay, I

really don't like it, but I love this

product. So, I'm going to say some nice

things about it. All right, folks. Uh

okay, we finally did it. We got Kobe

Reddish and Jacob Hansen on the same

platform. There is a God. I believe in

miracles. Amen.

>> I even I even hung out with John Delin

earlier this ear a few months ago. What

what is going on?

>> I know. I know. See, I think this this

is great. And I actually think that this

is a great convergence of a lot of

communities coming together. And I

honestly think that in many ways I think

the whole Charlie Kirk thing kind of

caused us to to step back a little bit

and say, "Okay, what are we doing here?

What kind of conversations are we

having? And how I'm not asking you to

change your beliefs. I'm asking you how

you articulate them so that we don't

have these u unhinged people um going

off on something that we said. So I

think it's it's really important that

that that we have the privilege to be on

these platforms and let's be a force for

good and I hope that this conversation

will be a force for good as well. So

recently there was a major debate that

happened with Jacob Hansen and a

prominent uh Catholic theologian or or

apologist I guess you could say and I

was really I I I actually got to listen

to it finally the whole time uh

yesterday from beginning to end. And I

was and I'm just going to share this

real quick for those of you who are

wondering which one it is. It is this

the great apostas apostasy debate um

with Joe Heshmire and which took place

in Utah. And this is causing a lot of

people to have a lot of interesting

conversations and there's been a lot of

uh reaction to it. And this is what you

can call is a debate reaction show to

this debate. And so I asked Dr. Kyle

Basher is my friend and Kobe Reddish to

come on and we set the day and time. And

I told them I said once we get this day

and time set up I'd like to invite Jacob

to come on to respond as well. So, what

this is is Kyle and Kobe are going to be

giving their uh analysis of the debate

and their reactions to it and uh and

some maybe some push back or whatever,

but we're also going to give Jacob the

opportunity to give his two cents and

also and if he feels he needs to push

back, he will. Now, folks, this is if

the second this starts becoming a

debate, I'm going to No, no, no, boys.

No debate. Okay? Uh this is a

conversation that we're going to have

today. Um I also just want to compliment

Jacob, and I said this off camera. I'm

gonna say this on camera, too. Kudos to

you, Jacob, for putting your neck out

there. Kudos to you for participating in

the public square. Kudos to you for

having a friendship with me and and

being willing to engage me over the

course of the last few years. And we I

think some of the conversations that you

and I have had and also some of the

conversations we've had with others when

in in in these public forums that we've

had have been really important and and I

just want to give you credit because

there are people that hide behind

keyboards and attack me and rather than

try to engage uh you've you've been

willing to engage since day one and I

think that's really important and I

really do feel the work that you know

Alex Okconor and these other

conversations that you're having like

with Trent Horn um these are invaluable

And I think that they they will um are I

think an important turning point. I just

wish I just wish that it was 20 years

ago when Christopher Hitchens was

traveling across the country offering to

debate anybody and it was crickets from

Utah. Jacob would have been the man to

debate Christopher Hitchens.

>> I don't know about that.

>> And I'm telling you right now, Jacob,

I'm telling you right now, you would

have done a heck of a lot better than

Frank Turk did. That's I'm just gonna

tell you that right now.

So without further ado, we're going to

get started here. Uh Kobe, you pro uh

perhaps you want to kind of introduce

what you want to do here and then maybe

your slides.

>> Yeah. No, I'm happy to. And yeah, I

agree. I agree, Jacob, that uh with

Steve that I'm glad you're here. Uh I

think when Steve asked me initially if I

had any thoughts on the debate, I had

some thoughts I think where I think you

did really well. I think some thoughts I

have some thoughts where I think Joe

kind of missed the point. Um, and there

are some other things I have about just

kind of the overall structure and logic

of the debate that I wanted to talk

about. That probably is my biggest

criticism. Just so just so I'm clear

about where we're going. Um, let me pull

up the slides here. Cool.

And it's looks like it's about ready to

pop up. Just still waiting. Here we go.

Sometimes it takes a second for it to load.

load.

This happens, folks. Welcome to the

world of podcast.

But yeah, Jacob, please just feel free

to pause me at any point.

>> Yeah. So, I don't see your presentation

quite yet up on the screen. >> Okay.

>> Okay.

Let me stop it and restart it. Sorry.

>> So, we'll just restart it there real

quick. And then Kyle, just while Kobe is

uh restarting this, I I thought maybe

you you have a few words you want to say

about this as well. Yeah, I I thought

this debate was really interesting. Um,

I think I saw it in my uh YouTube kind

of recommendations, but didn't really

think anything of it. I'm not Roman

Catholic. Um, so it would kind of be

like I'd be a guest watching that, but I

had it sent to me personally like five

or six times and uh, two two times it

was from Roman Catholic friends and

they're like, I need to have your

response or your thoughts on this. So, I

did I I watched the entire debate uh and

I think we started talking about it uh

Steve one-on-one. Uh and that's when you

hatched the idea of well, why don't we

just we just talk about the debate

because it caused such a uh caused such

a stir. Um, so yeah, my I I think what

Kobe's going to do is he's he's gonna

bring more of the um like the 30,000

foot view analysis or or structural

analysis. And then what I have is

essentially poperriy questions that I'm

really glad that Jacob's here um so that

I'm not posing the question, wondering

it out loud, and then um not permitting

Jacob to be able to to speak into that.

So I'm glad you're here, Jacob.

>> Thank you. Glad to be here. Yeah, I I

that's kind of what I wanted to say too,

Jacob. One of the things I I really

enjoy about something you've said,

something I completely agree with is it

is a shame when people are willing to

talk about people and not with people.

So, I'm really glad you're here. So,

that if there are points where you feel

like criticism is unfair, we can just

kind of have a live conversation about

that. So, I completely agree. So, this

was kind of just my introductory slide

showing people where they can find the

debate. And then, Jacob, you had done a

response. I think you've done a couple

now, right, where you've talked.

>> Yeah. Yeah. In fact, in fact, Joe and I

and Cameron all got together and we

talked for two and a half hours about

the debate, rehashed everything and kind

of had our own uh uh full debate recap

amongst the three of us. So, it was

actually really good.

>> Yeah, I was able to catch that. It was

it was interesting. I think it clarified

a lot of things for me, too. So, as far

as my overall Let's see. There we go.

Perfect. As far as my overall three

points that I had, I wanted to talk

about um my position would be Jacob that

your argument, at least the way you

framed it in the debate was facious. And

I'll kind of break down why. Um I think

one of the points I would, you know,

speak to your credit on is after the

debate, Joe took to calling you

dishonest or saying that you were

basically engaging in bad faith. And I

don't believe that is accurate. I think

um you know in debates in any type of

discussion it's really difficult for

people to ensure that they're able to

set their presuppositions aside and I

think really what happened is maybe

completely unaware of it you didn't

recognize where you hadn't set some of

those presuppositions aside and Joe

mistook that for dishonesty and I think

in that live conversation you mentioned

they you really were able to clarify

that and I was glad to see you guys kind

of agree on on that point at least that

there could have been greater clarity

and then my last point is I think in one

of your responses, you claimed that Joe

didn't understand LDS claims about the

great apostasy. And I think when we look

at the debate and look at the things

that he cited, I just think that's a

really difficult position to take uh

given what he cited. So any questions on

the front end before I kind of go into

this first point?

>> Um not not in particular. I do want to I

do want to frame one thing that I think

is very important from the start is what

the debate prompt was that we were

debating. That was actually I think my

very first slide.

>> Perfect. Yes. Good. I want to make sure

that that's very clear because I think

one of the big things again from the

structural aspect of this is making sure that

that

>> we understand what the debate was about

and then also what sort of the key terms

are in the debate that we're debating

like what is meant by a great apostasy

um what is meant by the church and those

sorts of things because if those aren't

understood by both parties which I

actually think frankly was at the heart

of sort of the issues in the debate >> was

>> was

>> I agree We if we had had a conversation

beforehand to sort of hash out the

definitions and like what we each mean

by these different things, I think the

debate could have been much better than

it was.

>> Sure. Sure. Yeah. So, do you want to

speak any more to the question of the

debate topic? Are there good

>> reasons to believe the Latter- Day Saint

claims about a great apostasy? That's

what I understood it was, but you were

part of those conversations. And it does

come down to really um this idea of you

know what are the LDS claims about a

great apostasy that we're going to be

debating like what is the what is the

central claim there? Um and for that um

well well you you go ahead with with

what you have to say and then I can I

I'll comment anything where I think

maybe you're you're off or on or whatever.

whatever.

>> Okay, cool. So yeah, I just clearly

wanted to define the the terms of the

debate, like you said, the debate topic.

So I've got this clip from your opening

where I think again the reason I have

this here is so that I could steal man

your position, allow people to hear it

from yourself. This is I think where you

really kind of state the terms of the

debate in the debate itself.

>> 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. 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 attitude or corrupted

in any 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 I felt like that was a good snippet

to kind of encapsulate your opening

argument, probably like the core of your

argument, Jacob. But is that is that

would you agree with that?

>> I would there was a part missing from

that that I would say uh that I said

before this. I say when I I I I defined

apostasy explicitly. In fact, I said I

said, "So, what is the great apostasy?"

I have my opening statement right here.

I want you all to write this down. So, I

literally told people like, "Write this

down. This is vitally important to

understanding all of my arguments

today." I said, '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

revelation for the entire body of

believers. So, if we want to steelman

for a second, could I could I actually

share my my screen real quick because I

think this is just to kind of steelman. Um,

Um, >> sure.

>> sure.

>> The part here that

uh let me know if you guys if that's

popping up on the screen. Can you can

you see that now, Steve?

>> We can see it.

>> Okay, let me do this. So, um Whoops. Let

me do this real quick. Uh slideshow. Um,

so first of all, what is the great

apostasy? Um, let me actually come down

here. This is the way I'm I'm framing

it. Okay, the great apostasy as I

understand it is taught by the church is

a is it's it's a narrative. It's about

the history. It's our take on the

ecclesiastical history of Christianity

and it says that there was a central and

ultimate authority that at one time

existed in the apostilhip.

>> Sure. holding the keys of the kingdom

and that that was lost and that the loss

of that

resulted in schism and doctrinal drift

over time. Now, if we look at what the

church actually says right on its

website, it says,

>> "Isn't I ask you a question about this?"

>> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.

>> Isn't this something that Joe cited

during the debate? Didn't he cite from

that exact page?

>> He might have, but I I want to just show

that what what I'm what I'm the way I'm

defining the great apostasy in this. I

want to show that because this is the

basis of the argument really because

once we've defined what a great apostasy

is, we then can understand the burdens

that we each have. Right? So the church

says that the apostles were killed. The

priesthood authority including the keys

to direct and receive revelation for the

church were taken from the earth. That's

the first box. That's the loss of that

central authority. And then the apostasy

resulted in the formation of many

churches with conflicting teachings.

During this time many men and women

sought the truth. Anyway, this is the

second part. It's the doctrinal drift

and schism part, right? And so to show

that there so the question becomes,

okay, how do I demonstrate that this

happened and how does Joe demonstrate

that this did not happen? Right? because

we're evaluating one of the things to

remember we're evaluating the LDS

claims. So what do a Latter-day Saints

mean when we talk about the great

apostasy and then are there good reasons

to believe that this thing that I'm

showing here the loss of central

authority and schism and doctrinal drift

actually happened in history. So the

biggest thing standing in the way of me

making this argument is the papacy

>> with regard to a Catholic. Sure. With

regard to a Catholic Yeah. Well,

certainly. And I and I want to explain

though why it isn't just for a Catholic.

Um, well, well, let let me let me let me

just well, let's talk about this real

quick. So, the burdens my burden is to

show that there was a loss of central

authority that led to schism and

doctrinal drift.

>> The burden of the other side is to show

that there was no loss of central

authority or doctrinal drift.

>> Okay? To show that this isn't true. Now

I would argue that the only institution

that show that has an institutional

sorry an institutional church um that

has a continual existence going all the

way back and by church I'm not talking

about the body of believers.

>> I'm talking about the institution that

governs those believers. The only

institution that I can see out there

that can credibly claim to have that

same centralized authority structure

that existed in the first century is the

Catholic Church. That's their big claim.

They say we are the ones who go all the

way back with an ultimate central

authority in the church.

>> And so in my mind, okay, the only one

who can show that this didn't happen has

to be able to fulfill the first box.

They have to show that that that central

authority wasn't lost. Protestants don't

claim an ultimate central adjudicator

for all believers on earth. They don't

claim that sort of a central authority

and and neither do orthodox. So

ultimately the great apostasy narrative,

the only institution that can claim to

be the original true church as we define

church as this body that has this

central governing authority is the

Catholic Church. Now, I thought about

all this stuff just so you guys know

before the debate. I I was I was trying

to figure out before this whole debate

happened, how am I going to approach

this? Like, how do you first of all,

what is the great apostasy? And then how

do you show that it actually happened?

And what I found was the way to show it

is to just go to the history and show

that there central authority was lost

and the only institution claiming that

authority can't claim it and that there

was schism and doctrinal drift. And so

that was my approach in the debate.

Since the since the debate ended up

being more about the papacy, do you feel

like I I guess I'm just curious because

it was so one of the things I think that

Joe has said that's like absolutely

crazy to me is when he acts like being

expected to defend the papacy came as

some surprise to him. So I want to be

really clear about that because I

absolutely agree with you that that's

going to fall within the scope of any

great apostasy abate debate. That's

right. Because if the papacy is true,

there was no great apostasy. I agree

with that. So I think that take saying

like I was completely surprised that's

wild to me especially if you wrote a

book on the topic frankly.

>> Yeah. I mean that like his his his

channel is shameless popery >> right.

>> right.

>> It was it was surprising that he was

shocked that I would go that direction.

>> No. And I I wasn't shocked you would go

that direction at all. I guess my

question is because

>> real quick Kobe Kobe why don't Jacob why

don't you exit out of the screen share

>> and then we can have this conversation. Okay.

Okay.

>> Yeah. My my I guess my question is and

of course hindsight's always 2020,

right? But my question is if you knew

that the case you'd prepared was mostly

about the papacy, like almost

exclusively about the papacy. I guess

I'm just confused. Why wasn't that like

the the topic you offered? Because and

Kyle can maybe speak to this, right?

When you say are LDS claims about the

great apostasy true, that would kind of

require proving that first element of

the institutional church has the

requirements that you believe they do.

And I get from your perspective, I think

I've heard you say you and Joe like

Catholics and Mormons kind of share that

presupposition. So I can understand for

the purposes of this debate why you went

there, but I guess looking back, do you

kind of wish you would have just said

let's debate is the papacy true?

>> Um yes. Um I I can see that perspective.

The the well one thing just the way the

debate came together is I didn't know

exactly how I was going to argue this.

we decided on the topic and then it's

like okay well how do I do this and I

began to think about it I started going okay

okay

>> what are we actually claiming when we

claim that there was a great apostasy

that was the first thing I had to get

very clear on

>> and I spent a lot of time thinking about

that and I came to realize that it does

come down to and there's two elements to

it and Joe was right to kind of point

this out there is sort of the corruption

side of it right when people think of

apostasy, they think about false

teachings and false practices and stuff

like that, but Latter-day Saints always

talk about the great apostasy in this

term of like losing central authority.

And so for a lot of people,

>> I mean, kind of kind of

>> well, I mean, sometimes there's a lot of

lessons about the, you know, the

scriptures in second Thessalonians and

about personal apostasy that evolves.

But I guess I mean, you can push back on

that. I just don't feel like that's

fully accurate having grown up. Well,

right in the well, I mean, I went right

to the church's website to to learn like

what is our claim officially on the

website about the great apostasy and it

talks about this idea that the apostles

were killed and priesthood authority

including keys to direct and receive

revelation for the church was taken from

the earth. A lot of Latter-day Saints,

if you were to ask them when did the

apostasy happen, they'll say that it

happened when that authority was lost.

Now, some people look at that and they

rightfully say, "Well, wait a minute.

Just because the the you know, you don't

have apostolic keys, that doesn't mean

that there's an apostasy at that

moment." Because when most people think

of the word apostasy, they think about

these they think about the schism and

doctrinal drift, right?

>> But but and so I realize that in order

to understand it properly, you have to

say that what we're talking about is

we're saying that because the central

authority was lost that held the whole

thing together. what resulted was

doctrinal drift and we call that entire

narrative we give it the name the great

apostasy right and so it definitionally

it it it can be a little uh and this is

what I was thinking as I was trying to

prepare for the debate and I realized

there are two essential elements to the

great apostasy one is the loss of

central authority and the other is the

doctrinal drift and I and so I'm

thinking okay how do I demonstrate that

well I started thinking well who else

claims a central authority except for us

and and the and the Catholics. And I was

like, I can't really think of any. And

so I realized that to demonstrate the

loss of central authority, especially if

I'm debating a Catholic, like that's

where I have to go first. So I have to

show two things. I have to show that

their central authority is invalid. And

then I have to show that the doctrinal

drift and schism resulted because of

that. So that's my

>> thesis that I that I brought into it.

And as far as the papacy goes and why

didn't we we change the topic or

something, I also think it's important

for people to understand

that the claims about the great apostasy

are extremely tightly

tied to the papacy and that when we're

talking about the great apostasy, the

papacy is the thing that's really front

and center in that entire narrative from

Latter-day Saints.

>> Yeah, that makes sense to me. Um, I know

Kyle probably has a lot to say about

that from a different perspective than,

you know, the the Mormon background or

um, Catholicism. Let me maybe just kind

of talk about

where I would defend my claim that I

think your argument is fellacious. So,

you had on your slides, if the papacy is

true, then the great apostasy didn't

happen. So, I completely agree with

that. Um, I had this opening that we

listened to. So during the live, you

guys broke down the structure of your

argument. This was one that you agreed

with. This was a similar way I broke

down your argument. So make sure that

I've, you know, steelman your position

here, but this is kind of my

understanding of your argument. If there

were no great apostasy, then we would

see clear continuous early evidence of

Roman style papal authority. Does that

feel like a fair premise?

>> I would change that one. I would say

that if there was no great apostasy, we

would see a continuous

ultimate central authority

in the church. >> Sure.

>> Sure.

>> From the beginning.

>> Okay. And then so

>> and it would be and I would say and I

have to put like a living authority as

well like a like a living authority

structure that gets passed down

something like to use the term like a

petrine office

>> is the is the ecclesiastical term.

>> And then however we want to amend that

definition that's completely fine. Yeah.

I was just doing my best to summarize it.

it.

>> Your second premise then would be we

don't see that kind of authority

existing, right? Therefore, a great

apostasy occurred.

>> Yes. But there's one other aspect of

this is that is that therefore the great

apostasy as defined by Latter-day Saints

or by the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints occurred. Because

remember this debate is not about just

if a great apostasy occurred. It's about

LDS claims. It's about how we define the

great apostasy. Did that occur? So, I

had to focus my arguments on what

Latter-day Saints claim about the great apost.

apost.

>> I mean, yeah, but that I mean that

really doesn't matter, right? It's just

a defined term. So, if because you'd

have So, if we're going to drop that

into our conclusion, then we also pull

that up to premise one. It doesn't

matter. It it just follows from the

conclusion. I guess I'm just asking. So

you agree with that amendment that this

would be like the overall structure of

your argument, right?

>> If if indeed the great apostasy is

defined as I've defined it earlier as

the lack of central authority. Um and

well I would I would probably in fact

let me let me double check this. There's

one other thing I actually would go back

to to Cameron's argument that you had

showed there earlier. I think it's more

complete because there's an extra

premise in there. Premise number five in

his see he says that all other churches

and I agree with this all other churches

admit that they lack either a universal

authoritative head or the keys held by

Peter or that that central authority is

divinely guided like they they no other

church claims that type of central

authority. Okay. Oh, there there'd have

to be another premise in there that in

your argument that would say something

along the lines of and no other like no

church has that centralized authority.

>> Kyle, real quick, Kyle, do you want to

weigh in on that, Kyle?

Yeah, yeah, I've got a lot of a lot of

comments, but that um yeah, that premise

there is really interesting because I'm

thinking of uh myriad sysmatic groups

from landmarkism to like apostolic renew

renewal movements in the charismatic

movement. So that that might be

overselling the argument. I think it's

fair though to say that the two

predominant ones that we think of would

be Roman Catholic and and Latter-day Saint.

Saint.

well, I would I would argue that historically

historically

well and I well I mean yes, there are

people that can other people out there

that will claim that an angel, you know,

came and brought them the authority as

well and and all that kind of stuff.

That that's fine. I'm not my thing is is

I actually am not arguing this from a

Latter-day Saint perspective. I'm

arguing it actually from a secular

perspective examining the LDS claims and

saying that yes in history there was no

continuous authority that was

>> that has been throughout history and

therefore it is there are good reasons

to believe the LDS claims about the

great apostasy. How how can you

simultaneously say that you're not like

arguing this from a Mormon perspective

when we added that to both the premise

and the conclusion? You'd said that you

needed to add that. I guess if you're

defining great apostasy exclusively as

it's defined in LDS claims, I don't

really think it's I mean this is

basically my next point, but I don't

think it's fair to say I'm not arguing

this from an LDS perspective when you're

explicitly building in LDS exclusive

definition. I mean that's totally you're

right. I'm just saying why would you say

I'm not arguing this with regard to Mormonism?

Mormonism?

>> So the question of the debate is are

there good reasons to believe the LDS

claims about a great apostasy. In other

words, we're asking we're saying I could

be an atheist and I could say look the

LDS claim that there was a loss of a

central ultimate authority in the church

that that did not have a continual

existence and that it resulted in schism

and doctrinal drift. Are there good

reasons to believe that as an atheist

that there like this is a claim about

history. This isn't a claim about about

like if Joseph saw God or something.

>> But I don't think then you can say that

you're not evaluating it within the

context of Elias claims. That's what I

am. What I'm saying is that the the the

truth of the claim isn't dependent on

Joseph Smith being a prophet. This is

just a claim about history that's either

true or false that can be evaluated by

by an atheist. And so I approached it

from the perspective of I if I and I

mean this quite sincerely. If I were not

a Latter- Day Saint, if I were an

atheist, I would still believe this.

>> I think it's the best way to examine the

the ecclesiastical history of the

Christian movement.

>> Yeah. Once you accept those definitions

as the great apostasy is defined in the

LDS context. I I see what you're saying.

Okay. So I think this is the problem

with the argument whether you want to

add that additional premise from

Camerons or not I don't think it really

matters. The problem is that this is a

formal logical fallacy. So the way and

it I think it's demonstrated in the way

you had it on your slide also. Um so

this is literally the exact same

structure. If it is raining outside then

we would see water on the grass. We see

water on the grass therefore it is

raining outside. This is a really common

form of logical fallacy known as

affirming the consequent. And the reason

it's facious is because there are

alternative causes that can satisfy that

condition. So I agree with you that if

Joe had proved the papacy, it disproves

the great apostasy. But then disproving

the papacy does not

does not unless you're adding another

premise or you're agreeing that you're

adding in some presupposition that

basically builds in that premise. That

probably is my biggest criticism of your

overall argument is that it really

didn't meet the burden of proof. I would

say because of this fallacy.

>> Yeah. So, so I think that the reason

that that fallacy isn't operative here

is because the there is a need then to

show what the other possible structure

is that could fit that particular

criteria. I'm making the argument that

the it's sort of like if you go back to

the the kind of rain analogy. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> If you'd have to say there'd be another

premises there and the only way that the

grass could be wet is if it was raining,

>> right? But

>> and what I'm saying is is that the only

way that the only institutional

structure that has a legitimate claim

here to this, unless Joe wants to point

to another, unless any of you want to

point to another institution that can

legitimately claim historically

that it is has had a continual existence

since the time of Jesus Christ

in a central authority that didn't have

to have some kind of a restoration.

I would think that

going back to Peter. The only one I

think who can try and make that claim

are the bishops of Rome. And I think

that they fail.

>> But couldn't, and maybe I'm just

inviting Kyle to speak, but couldn't

someone just argue that that first

premise is false and that's their

alternative? They don't have to agree to

the terms that you and Joe are willing

to agree to because Mormons and

Catholics share that presupposition, right?

right?

>> And I but but what I'm saying that's why

we have to go back to remember we're

debating what are the LDS claims. What

people could say is they could say that

our definition of a great apostasy is

stupid because you don't need a central

ultimate authority to have the

institutional church. People can and do

make that argument. That is the

Protestant argument by the way. uh you

don't need to have a central and

ultimate adjudicator to have the

institution. Now, that is the Protestant

claim, but that is not the LDS claim,

and we're debating the LDS claim about

the great apostasy and if there's good

reasons to believe it. So, if Joe would

have approached the debate and said

simply, you do not need a central

authority to have the fullness of the

institution, well, then he could have

gone that route. Now, obviously, as a

Catholic, he's not going to do that

because he he he believes that. And so,

what I'm saying is is that if a if if if

a a Protestant was going to debate this

subject, they debate it totally

differently. And I know Kyle's over

there going, I would have debated it

differently because I'm rejecting the

need for this ultimate central authority

in the church. Now, my reasoning behind

this, if we go, I'm gonna share my

screen real quick. Okay,

>> while you do that, can I ask one

question? So, I I'm not really

understanding. So, you're saying that

you didn't

>> I guess I'm not fully understanding like

a real simple statement on why why

wasn't your argument.

>> Put it this way. You have to show that

there's an alternative that's viable

>> to meet the LDS definition of a church

that has a continual institution that

continually exists institutionally over

time. And I would ask you, any of you,

does any other church fit that that

bill? The only one that I think even

attempts to fit that bill of continual

existence of central authority going all

the way back to to to the original

church and Peter and the Petrine office

is the Catholic Church. Others who claim

it, including Latter-day Saints, by the

way, claim it was a restoration. We

don't claim it was we don't claim it was

continuous. The idea of the apostasy is

that there's a break in the continuity.

So you have to show somebody that shows

that there wasn't a break in the

continuity and therefore there was no

apostasy of the institution.

So So the idea is again I understand the

affirming the consequent issue and I

agree with you. If my argument was the

Catholic Church is false, therefore

there was a great apostasy just in

general without defining what we mean by

a great apostasy. You're right. That's a

bad argument. So you think it's because

you added that qualifier of LDS claims

about the great apostasy that they

>> we are we are arguing the LDS definition

of great apostasy and frankly what Joe

should have done is he should have

argued against that definition and

offered an alternative definition but

even that would have been hard because

the the debate is about the LDS claims

and if there's good reasons to believe them

them

>> does so yeah to make sure I'm

understanding this correctly would that

then shift the the burden for this

argument to um having to defend the

claims themselves. So, I'm trying to

like uno reverse this.

>> If we're if if the structure is still

there and it's it's an it's an error, it

would be something like if there was a

complete apostasy that required

restoration, then we would uh let me

make sure I get this right. If there

were a a complete apostasy that's

requiring some kind of restoration, then

we would see like clear and continuous

evidence in the early church doctrines

that are being lost and corrupted um

universally across all Christian

communities because I think we just as a

footnote there when we think about the

early church they don't have the

hierarchy yet. they're they're separate

communities that are separated by

distance, by persecution, by um slow

means of communication, right? So, we

would see them all like losing doctrine

at the same time. Premise two then would

be well from a Catholic perspective,

well, we don't see that kind of

doctrinal loss um clearly. So and and in

fact what we do see is we're advancing

in our like understanding of like

christoologgical creeds um formulas of

the trinity like there's remarkable

unity therefore no complete apostasy

occurred and the LDS restoration was

unnecessary. So then what's going to

have to happen is you're going have to

go back to premise two and be like well

were the are the creeds actually uh you

know um true like was there actual

continuity um with with doctrine. Does

that make sense? I'm what I'm trying to

do is like take your argument and then

like flip it from a Catholic perspective

and then put it back to you.

>> So so it all comes down really the the

the thing isn't so much the doctrinal

drift and schism. That is something that

we believe is an effect of the loss of

this centralized adjudicating authority

in the institution. The apostasy that we

talk about is that the institution

itself was broken. It was fractured and

be or or it lacked the thing that held

it all together which was the central

adjudicating authority. It'd be like the

US not having a Supreme Court. Right? If

you don't have the Supreme Court and you

have a whole bunch of different judges

with equal authority and they start to

render different judges judgments, it'd

be very very difficult to keep all of

that together. You have different

systems of law in different areas that

you that you're at and so you end up

getting schism. Okay. If you have an

ultimate adjudicator, it it maintains

institutional u integrity. By the way,

this this applies in business as well.

It doesn't just apply in in any

institution. Okay? If I start a business

and I'm a sole proprietor, I make all

the calls and all that. The moment I get

someone else involved, we have to decide

what is my relationship authoritatively

to that other person. Is he an equal

partner with me or is he under my

authority? Now, the business or the

entity, the institution is ultimately

under the authority of whoever the

ultimate authority is in the

institution. Okay. So the moment that

you have uh an institution that doesn't

have an ultimate central authority

that institution is subject to fracture

because if you have a a a collection of

equals none of them can make an ultimate

adjudicating decision and therefore

those those equals

um when they have a disagreement that

they can't agree on will fracture from

one another. And this isn't I'm not even

making an argument from uh

uh from this is like a sociological and

uh kind of like institutional argument.

It's an argument just from the nature of

institutions themselves and the way that

authority exists within institutions.

>> Okay, let me ask a question about that

then. So

um you're right that there are off like

yeah obviously any um any business any

government entity anything needs a final

decision maker that's just the way

reality works right but often times like

using one of your examples the Supreme

Court has nine justices it's nine

independent people that act together

>> to make a decision so I guess that a

little when you say an ultimate

authority it sounds like you're talking

about one person But sometimes the

ultimate decision maker isn't one

person. Sometimes it's multiple people.

>> Correct. 100%. Here, let me actually

I'll share something on the screen. I'll

talk about exactly what this what this

is. Um,

let me share this

slideshow. All right. Let me

>> I guess the reason I'm asking the

question is because I'm sure Catholics

are obviously or Catholics would have a

completely different understanding of this.

this.

>> Yeah. Yeah. The Catholics, the Catholics

believe in a central single individual

who is the ultimate uh adjudicator for

the church. That's what the pope is, right?

right?

>> Um the orthodox model is like what

you're talking about. It's a collection

of a small group of authorities that

ultimately hold ultimate jurisdiction.

>> So this is kind of the Catholic model.

Now look, if you have schism that

exists, and I call this, this actually

isn't schism. I don't call this schism.

I call this apostasy because ultimately

if I run away from an institution that

has a centralized authority, I'm not

equal to that authority, right? I'm

breaking away. Uh in fact, apostasia

means to stand apart from something. So

what are you standing apart from? Well,

you're standing apart from the central

authority, the the legitimate authority,

the ultimate authority that exists, and

you're going off and doing your own

thing, right? So this is what I would

call apostasy. But in this model, you

can look, you can say, "No, no, you can

tell who here is still the the original

deal, right?" Cuz they're they're linked

to that ultimate authority.

>> Can I ask you a question about this?

Okay. So going back there, how do you

how are you able to categorize or like

select between this which in your

Catholic model or in your like in your

argument against a Catholic represents

like a general great apostasy versus

like the LDS church has tons and tons of

breakoffs and schisms like hundreds.

>> And the question is how do you

>> how do you determine

>> how do you because obviously a Catholic

isn't going to agree with this framing,

right? They'll just say

>> no they they would they would say that

that there are groups that are breaking

away from the mother church when you

reject the pope and the pope's

legitimacy. You are no longer a Catholic

because you have broken away from the

authority structure that holds this

whole thing together under the Roman

pontiff and you're not a member of the

Catholic Church anymore. And so you're

you're in you're a schismatic and you're

in a lot of trouble with the Catholic

Church because of that.

>> Um can I can I ask a a clarifying

question? Yeah. Um because I want to

make sure we're I'm not Roman Catholic

obviously. Um but I want to make sure

we're not

>> Yeah. None of us are, right? So we're

break we're breaking uh Jacob's rule

about not talking uh with them. We're

talking about them.

So, um, the way I understand authority e

ecclesiologically within the Roman

Catholic Church is that it it's it's

less of a a hierarchical structure than

it is kind of like a three-legged stool.

And each each of these three legs has um

has a really tight relationship of like

checks and balances, right? So you have

sacred scripture

>> which is which is the the Roman Catholic

uh cannon of the Bible. You have uh

tradition which is the apostolic

teaching that's being um passed down

through bishops. Right? So the the the

pope is not an an apostle. He doesn't

fit that definition but he is the bishop

of bishops which leads you then to the

magisterium. So the the teaching office

of of the of the church is the

magisterium for all matters of doctrine

and morality. So they can only speak to

like ethical things or um scripture. And

I So, Jacob, here's where I would like

clarification because when I was when I

was listening to um you describe um

papal primacy and papal infallibility

and those types of things, it it sounded

very much like a Latter-day Saint was

overlaying their understanding of the

prophet of the Latter Days

on top of the the papacy and almost like

giving the papacy more power and authority.

authority.

than he he actually does. And there

there are things that you know the

prophet can't come out at next general

conference and be like, "Hey, the Book

of Mormon isn't true." Right? So there

are limitations to what the the prophet

would do. But I think there are far more limitations

limitations

um on on the uh on the Pope than than it

seemed it came across. Right. So you

were you you talked a lot about um papal

infallibility speaking um ex cathedra as

that one central authority to make sure

everything's on track.

>> But as far as I understand there's only

been one or two um uh moments when when

the papacy spoke ex cathedral.

>> I I think there probably are more than

that. All of the infallible dogmas of

the Catholic faith are considered ex

cathedra infallible statements from

popes and pontiffs. Um, so for

>> are you talking about pre pre sorry just

to to make sure we're clear here like

codified excathedra postvatican 1 or are

you including everything up to Vatican 1

that was de facto ex

>> everything everything up to Vatican 1

that was deacto the things that the that

the Catholic church and they and they

and you can see this if you look into

the Catholic uh catechism and stuff

things like for example the bodily

assumption of Mary that is a defeated

dogma in the Catholic faith that is

infallible. And not only is it

infallible, if you don't believe it, you

are in a if you knowingly reject the

bodily assumption of Mary as a Catholic,

you are in a state of mortal sin. If you

don't repent of mortal sins,

then you are condemned to hell. Um, that

is the Catholic dogma. Now, I agree with

you about those three legs. So, Jacob,

real quick, would you mind exiting out

just so we can

>> Oh, yeah. Well, can I real quick just

finish this thing? Just just real quick.

I just want to show and then I want to

come back to you, Kyle, with what you're

saying. I want to talk about this idea

of a centralized structure when there's

schism or or apostasy as we would call

it versus an equalized structure. This

is kind of to your point um um Colby,

this is the orthodox model. You have the

apostolic bishops who act as the highest

authority of church and they together

sort of govern things. The problem is is

what happens when those people disagree

when they're all equals. They end up

schisming from one another. >> Sure.

>> Sure.

>> Is the authority structure even in the

Supreme Court there's a mechanism by

which by vote

there is an ultimate adjudication

process. That process does not exist

within orthodoxy. At least it's not

codified anywhere. It's not codified in

scripture. And what happens is is that

they break off. And there's a good

argument about this that truth isn't

determined by majority vote.

And so, and so if you have equal authorities,

authorities,

um, authority is ultimately about

institutional integrity. And it's why

it's why authority really matters

because if you have no institutional

integrity, an authority that by divine

decree gets to make the final judgment

or a process that gets to make that

final judgment by divine decree, then

this is what you get. You get schism.

You get people disagreeing and breaking

apart. And so again, just institutional,

I'll go and stop there. That's an issue.

Now from the I want to go quick back to

you uh Kyle with what you said about the papacy.

papacy. Now

Now

um yes the pope yes the pope is supposedly

supposedly

he is supposedly restricted by tradition

for example.

Um the problem is there was once a pope

who said I am tradition and the for

example now I wanted to point this out

in the debate tradition is subject to

what the pope says it is scripture is

subject to what the pope says it is that was

was

>> isn't the LDS church just exactly the

same way though yeah

>> I think ultimately in a way yes

institutionally 100% we have an ultimate

final authority

>> and Bed and Bedar said I am scripture as well

well

>> yeah no no I I'm not I'm not I'm not

ignoring. In fact, I think it's one of

the strengths of Catholicism to have an

ultimate adjudicating authority on an

institutional level. Now, I don't think

that that means that it's true.

>> Remember, having authority doesn't mean

that what you're saying is true. It just

says that you're the one who gets to

make the call. Just because the Supreme

Court has the ability to render final

judgments doesn't mean that their

judgments are correct.

>> Yeah. They even said that. One of the

justices famously said, "We're not final

because we're infallible. We're

infallible because we are final."

>> Exactly. So what happens is is that when

you have uh an a central again all this

is about institutional integrity right

it's kind of like when you're on a

basketball team your coach may not

always make the right call but if you

don't have a coach then no one makes the

final call and you just get schism so

it's better to have here I'll use this

example I'm in business and I recently

formed a business partnership and I was

advised by someone because we were going

to do a 50-50 partnership and a guy I

know who's very wise told me do not have

equal authority in decision-making. Give

one of the partners ultimate

decision-making authority. And I was

like, why? And he said, because you

might end up in gridlock. And he's like,

it's better to have a wrong decision

than no decision and schism between you.

And so, again, institutionally

in my mind, it's it's one of the it's

the reason the Catholic Church has been

so successful is because institutionally

they are very strong because they have a

central authority. So, what I'm pointing

out here, Kyle, sorry to kind of keep

going about this point, is that the

scripture is subject to the Pope's

interpretation. Tradition is subject to

what the Pope says it is. You know as

well as I, there is nothing in the

tradition about the bodily assumption of

Mary in the early church. It's just a

madeup thing that the popes came up with

because they came up with some really

bad ideas about about original sin. And

one lie kind of one mistake turned into

many. And eventually they said, "Yeah,

we just have to declare this." So, so

ultimately I agree that they say that

that's the way the structure works. But

institutionally, which is what we're

talking about,

the final call on what the scriptures

are and what tradition is and all what

the magisterium says is what the pope dictates.

So,

>> yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I So, I'll be I'll

be very clear. I don't believe in the

immaculate conception or the bodily

assumption of Mary either. I guess one

of one of my one of my um one of the

reasons I wanted to travel down that

road though was to to try to discern

your understanding of of the papacy and

whether or not some of your experience

as a Latter-day Saint being in an

institution with the living prophet on

earth um colors that um because it's

because even to try again to try to

steal man and to be charitable to the

Roman Catholics Um, Vatican 1 is when

you finally get Excathedra as a as a

codified doctrine for the church.

>> Um, bodily assumption of Mary comes in 1950.

1950.

>> Well, well, I would say just just to

back that up one. Okay.

>> The Catholic Church teaches in Vatican 1

that the Vatican 1 understanding of

papal primacy has been in existence

since the beginning.

>> Since the beginning. Since the

beginning. They say that that is the

apostolic tradition is that the bishop

of Rome was the infallible ultimate

adjudicator. They just don't believe

that the bishops originally knew that.

>> Right. So, so they're developing like

they're still developing even in the

19th century with Vatican 1. They're but

they're not from what are they

developing if not from revelation from God.

God.

>> Well, I think for their own

institutional self-standing, but that's

me as a Protestant.

>> I know. And I'm say what I'm but I'm

saying is we I'm pointing that out. What

I'm saying is this is all evidence that

their claims to an ultimate central

adjudicating authority do not hold up

under any scrutiny whatsoever. And

therefore you end up going okay either

we don't need an ultimate central

adjudicator which is the which is the

call of the Protestants. Um or you can

say that it was lost which is what the

Latter-day Saint claim is.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Do you think that the early

uh Mormon church history reflects

like the same? It seems like you're

applying a very rigorous model to the

Catholic claims. For example, like I

noticed you were kind of laughing when

you were talking about how they've ch

like they've changed something and then

you know said well even though people

didn't understand it before that's that

they've always had that authority. Hang

on let me finish my question. So, I

mean, LDS early church history is really

messy when it comes to authority claims

and priesthood transferences. And I

guess my question is just what would you

say to the criticism that you're you're

kind of applying an unequal standard?

Um, there

>> uh it primarily has to do with the

infallible statements. Like I wouldn't

hold the Catholics to doctrines that

they proclaimed that they have not

declared infallibly. Um my claim is when

you declare something as infallible that

ultimately shows is absolutely incorrect.

incorrect.

>> So do you believe that there are LDS

leaders who have claim because we don't

use the term infallible. Are they LDS

leaders who you believe have taught

things as doctrine that are not doctrine

or the today teaches are >> 100%.

>> 100%.

>> So how how are you not applying a double

standard if you

>> because a a doctrine is a claim that

something is true. Okay. So if I claim

that something is true, it might not be

true. Okay? The Catholic Church will

claim things that are true that are not

true. When you claim that you give

something infallibly, you now are

basically saying that if this is wrong,

my claim to infallibility is false.

Okay? So when you claim that what I'm

saying cannot be an error because remember

remember

there's a difference between something

that is true and when 2 plus two is

true. Now people say is that infallibly

true? That's that's incoherent. It

infallibility is about the person making

the claim. It's saying that I cannot be

wrong about this. Okay? So when someone

says I have an infallible teaching

office, in other words, what I'm saying

cannot be false. and then you show that

that's false, then that means that their

claim to infallible

in that thing to have an infallible

ability is is isn't true. Right? So

because the Catholics hold to a standard

on certain claims that they make that

they stake their entire existence on it. Okay?

Okay?

Because if any infallible pronunciation

by the pope is shown to be false, then

all of Catholicism collapses because

their claim is that their pope has the

infallible teaching office. Okay. So the

response is that it's not a double

standard because Catholics specifically

claim this doctrine of infallibility and

so I can apply a heightened I can

basically apply that heightened standard

to their claims that I don't apply to LDS.

LDS.

>> Exactly. Exactly. And our claims are

subject to to fallibility. I don't hold

to the infallible standard. I think

Latter Day Saints who do, I look at them

and go, "Good luck. Col's going to rip

you into a thousand pieces." Because

there are a lot of things that have been

taught, truth claims that have been made

that are false. But the question is it

comes down to a a is it possible? Is it

possible? And I I am not a Catholic. I

am not educated on Catholicism. I know

you went to Catholic school, Jacob, and

I know Kyle, you do a lot of interfaith

work as do you, Steve. So, I'm probably

the least qualified to ask this

question, but I guess my question is, is

it possible that Catholics view the

claim to infallibility kind of the same

way we view like the Supreme Court, for

example, like it's a practical necessity

that someone is ultimately infallible.

And maybe it's kind of a shared fiction.

And I would even then say that's very

analogous to the way I see sometimes the

way people treat LDS prophets. It's like

they'll admit that they make tons of

mistakes and and yet we still need a

head of the church and God's doing his

best through the people that he can

call. It just seems like maybe there's a

way those standards could be reconciled,

I guess. But I don't understand enough

about Catholicism to understand if that

infallibility claim is a true like

theological doctrinal claim to that

person cannot make a mistake. No, it

isn't it isn't that they can never make

a mistake. Okay, that that is I want to

make sure I'm steel manning the the

position of of the of the Catholic

Church. They do not believe that every

word ever pronounced by a pope is

infallible. There are things that they

call infallible or ex cathedra from the

chair of Peter. Now, there's debate

about what counts, but you can actually

find in the Catechism of the Catholic

Church that the dogmas of the faith,

there's a difference between a doctrine

or a teaching and a dogma in Catholic

thought. A dogma in Catholic thought is

something that you as a Catholic must

believe. And if you knowingly reject a

dogma of the faith, you are not in a

state of salvation. Like you have to

believe it to be a Catholic. And so um

and and so those dogmas are considered

to be infallibly true. In other words,

they they're pronounced by the pope as

something that like in my office I can

make an infallible declaration. The

dogmas are the fa of the faith are my

and our infallible declarations that we

make to the world. Our entire existence

as a church is staked on these things

being true.

>> That is that is the nature of it. Now,

we as Latter- Day Saints sort of have

something like that in that I mean there

are truth claims that if they're false

disprove all of Mormonism. If Joseph

Smith did not see God the Father and the

Son, if he did not receive special

authority from God to do what he did,

well then all of this falls apart,

right? So, um but the Catholics have

very specific ones. Um,

and so what I'm showing by showing that

those particular dogmas are false, I'm

showing that their papal claims are also

false, which just adds to this idea that

the central authority that existed in

the early church, which by the way

didn't even include infallibility, uh,

uh,

um, did not have a continual existence.

and that these things that we're

witnessing are part of the schism and

doctrinal drift that happens over time

when you don't have a divinely guided uh

a divinely guided central institutional

authority. That's kind of the the basics

of it.

>> And again, you think that's applying the

same standard to LDS

leadership and authority claims because

I mean their understanding has evolved

so drastically. Jose Smith wouldn't

recognize the church today at all. I

would I would put it this way within the

LDS context. The double standard here is that like you had said earlier, we just

that like you had said earlier, we just have a different sort of standard. Now

have a different sort of standard. Now the question always becomes how fallible

the question always becomes how fallible can someone be? How many mistakes can

can someone be? How many mistakes can they make before you start to say that

they make before you start to say that they're not even reliable or that

they're not even reliable or that there's some other source that is more

there's some other source that is more reliable than the Church of Jesus Christ

reliable than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on spiritual

of Latter-day Saints on spiritual matters. And that's kind of a subjective

matters. And that's kind of a subjective call that people have to make and people

call that people have to make and people leave the faith because they come to the

leave the faith because they come to the conclusion that they're not they aren't

conclusion that they're not they aren't the most reliable source for spiritual

the most reliable source for spiritual wisdom in seeking Jesus Christ.

wisdom in seeking Jesus Christ. >> Yeah, maybe one reason. Um, okay. So,

>> Yeah, maybe one reason. Um, okay. So, just to understand where you land on the

just to understand where you land on the LDS authority claim question

LDS authority claim question because earlier I had asked you a

because earlier I had asked you a question about prophets that teach

question about prophets that teach things as doctrine that the church today

things as doctrine that the church today recognizes are not doctrine and you

recognizes are not doctrine and you agree there are things that they've

agree there are things that they've taught that are not doctrine. So, but

taught that are not doctrine. So, but they can that can still be incorporated

they can that can still be incorporated in your definition of what a a prophet

in your definition of what a a prophet is or a reliable prophet is just so I'm

is or a reliable prophet is just so I'm understanding. Okay.

understanding. Okay. >> Okay. Just real quick, Jacob, I just

>> Okay. Just real quick, Jacob, I just want to ask you too because when I think

want to ask you too because when I think of like, okay, you had Brigham Young and

of like, okay, you had Brigham Young and the Adam God doctrine,

the Adam God doctrine, >> okay, and you have he's a prophet,

>> okay, and you have he's a prophet, >> right? And because of this doctrine that

>> right? And because of this doctrine that he taught,

he taught, it actually led to schism in the church.

it actually led to schism in the church. Yeah, because the church later would

Yeah, because the church later would walk it back and others be like,

walk it back and others be like, "Uh-uh." And there we have the

"Uh-uh." And there we have the fundamentalists coming out and embracing

fundamentalists coming out and embracing this doctrine. So, by definition, if

this doctrine. So, by definition, if your prophet actually teaches a doctrine

your prophet actually teaches a doctrine that leads to schism, doesn't isn't that

that leads to schism, doesn't isn't that an issue?

an issue? >> Uh, no, not necessarily. I think that it

>> Uh, no, not necessarily. I think that it could like schism can happen all the

could like schism can happen all the time for a variety of reasons. And if he

time for a variety of reasons. And if he was wrong, he was wrong. Yeah. So he

was wrong, he was wrong. Yeah. So he taught a he taught a false doctrine in

taught a he taught a false doctrine in your world and led to schism.

your world and led to schism. >> Doesn't that seem to be undermining the

>> Doesn't that seem to be undermining the the the prophetic office of your church?

the the prophetic office of your church? >> Certainly. Anytime a prophet gets

>> Certainly. Anytime a prophet gets something wrong, it undermines the

something wrong, it undermines the reliability of that prophet. And

reliability of that prophet. And >> but I think it's not just I think to

>> but I think it's not just I think to steal man what Steve's saying, it's not

steal man what Steve's saying, it's not just getting something wrong. It's

just getting something wrong. It's getting something wrong that directly

getting something wrong that directly led to schism. It's exactly the same.

led to schism. It's exactly the same. Like I guess this is where I'm seeing

Like I guess this is where I'm seeing the double standard. Like it's exactly

the double standard. Like it's exactly this. It's like there were people who

this. It's like there were people who took Brigham. 's message and carried it

took Brigham. 's message and carried it forward into schism. Right. So, isn't it

forward into schism. Right. So, isn't it slightly different than just he taught

slightly different than just he taught something that was wrong? It's he taught

something that was wrong? It's he taught something was that was wrong that led to

something was that was wrong that led to the exact criticism you're leving

the exact criticism you're leving against the papacy or in your your

against the papacy or in your your papacy debate in the early church, isn't

papacy debate in the early church, isn't it?

it? >> No, I'll explain the difference. So,

>> No, I'll explain the difference. So, well, I I'll I'll I'll give this

well, I I'll I'll I'll give this example. First of all, when it comes to

example. First of all, when it comes to the papacy, you're dealing with

the papacy, you're dealing with infallible claims, right? If if Brigham

infallible claims, right? If if Brigham Young had claimed that he was the

Young had claimed that he was the infallible adjudicator and that this

infallible adjudicator and that this pronunciation that he has was not just

pronunciation that he has was not just true, but that it was being produced by

true, but that it was being produced by a by an infallible teaching office, well

a by an infallible teaching office, well then it would prove that there wasn't an

then it would prove that there wasn't an infallible teaching office because it

infallible teaching office because it wasn't.

wasn't. >> When you say that, like does he have to

>> When you say that, like does he have to use those exact words or can that just

use those exact words or can that just be the effect of what he taught? because

be the effect of what he taught? because I I would want to I would go with what

I I would want to I would go with what was actually said rather than just

was actually said rather than just things that are implied.

things that are implied. >> But let me just say

>> But let me just say >> because anyone even if a any any leader

>> because anyone even if a any any leader of the church who teaches something that

of the church who teaches something that is false uh first of all that's always a

is false uh first of all that's always a possibility. Well, real quick Steve just

possibility. Well, real quick Steve just just to make the point here.

just to make the point here. >> Okay. But can I clarify my question

>> Okay. But can I clarify my question because I I'm not sure you understood

because I I'm not sure you understood it. My question was actually

it. My question was actually >> if Oh, dang it. I'm gonna lose it. I'm

>> if Oh, dang it. I'm gonna lose it. I'm sorry. Continue.

sorry. Continue. >> I was just gonna I was just going to say

>> I was just gonna I was just going to say this real quick, Steve.

this real quick, Steve. >> Okay. So if let's say that somebody

>> Okay. So if let's say that somebody leaves this central authority structure

leaves this central authority structure because the central authority actually

because the central authority actually makes a wrong call, right? Let's say

makes a wrong call, right? Let's say that let's say that that

that let's say that that uh you know let's say the pope let's say

uh you know let's say the pope let's say all the papal claims are true, right?

all the papal claims are true, right? And then one day the pope decides to

And then one day the pope decides to take a position on climate change or

take a position on climate change or even let's let's say that he's um let's

even let's let's say that he's um let's say that the bishop is teaching

say that the bishop is teaching something about Jesus that isn't true

something about Jesus that isn't true like it's actually like a false

like it's actually like a false doctrine. Let's say let's say the pope

doctrine. Let's say let's say the pope says that Adam is God. He doesn't say it

says that Adam is God. He doesn't say it infallibly but he says that Adam is God.

infallibly but he says that Adam is God. Does that mean because the pope said

Does that mean because the pope said something wrong that now we need to

something wrong that now we need to reject the authority structure of the

reject the authority structure of the church?

church? No. You can still have someone be

No. You can still have someone be authoritative and be the authority in

authoritative and be the authority in the church and be wrong. Just like in

the church and be wrong. Just like in the if the Supreme Court gets something

the if the Supreme Court gets something wrong, we don't reject the institution

wrong, we don't reject the institution of the Supreme Court. Okay? So again,

of the Supreme Court. Okay? So again, it's about institutional integrity. It's

it's about institutional integrity. It's like when you're on a basketball team.

like when you're on a basketball team. If your coach makes a wrong call, does

If your coach makes a wrong call, does something stupid? It even makes you lose

something stupid? It even makes you lose a game, does that mean now that you just

a game, does that mean now that you just Now, you might say, "I don't I don't

Now, you might say, "I don't I don't think this is the right team. I don't

think this is the right team. I don't think he's a legit coach. Like, I just

think he's a legit coach. Like, I just want to get away from this team." That's

want to get away from this team." That's fine. But if you're going to remain on

fine. But if you're going to remain on the team, you ultimately have to respect

the team, you ultimately have to respect the authority of the coach even when the

the authority of the coach even when the coach

coach makes a wrong call. Okay. So

makes a wrong call. Okay. So >> how far Yeah. I guess then it just gets

>> how far Yeah. I guess then it just gets into the interesting question of like

into the interesting question of like how far far is your tolerance.

how far far is your tolerance. >> You're exactly right.

>> You're exactly right. >> Being wrong. Exactly right.

>> Being wrong. Exactly right. >> What I what I I came back to my question

>> What I what I I came back to my question which was

which was >> I understand that Brigham Young never

>> I understand that Brigham Young never used the words I'm teaching this

used the words I'm teaching this infallibly but the practical effect of

infallibly but the practical effect of some of the things that he taught or the

some of the things that he taught or the past leaders have taught that are

past leaders have taught that are recognized today as being basically

recognized today as being basically erroneous teachings were taught with

erroneous teachings were taught with equal like if we looked at the claims

equal like if we looked at the claims and mapped them out. They were taught

and mapped them out. They were taught with equal force and authority. Like it

with equal force and authority. Like it was taught very clearly that you needed

was taught very clearly that you needed to participate in polygamy for example

to participate in polygamy for example to achieve exaltation and salvation. I I

to achieve exaltation and salvation. I I understand that isn't using the word I'm

understand that isn't using the word I'm claiming. I'm teaching this infallibly.

claiming. I'm teaching this infallibly. But if we look at the claim and the

But if we look at the claim and the point is well we're just countering the

point is well we're just countering the claim or evaluating the claim like you

claim or evaluating the claim like you were saying of the infallible claims.

were saying of the infallible claims. Practically there's no difference

Practically there's no difference between that and using the words I'm

between that and using the words I'm teaching this with my infallible office.

teaching this with my infallible office. If you're telling people,

If you're telling people, >> well, hang on. If you're telling people

>> well, hang on. If you're telling people that they won't achieve exaltation and

that they won't achieve exaltation and you're the profit of that movement, that

you're the profit of that movement, that seem like I can't imagine something

seem like I can't imagine something taught with greater force regardless of

taught with greater force regardless of whether you say I'm teaching this

whether you say I'm teaching this infallibly or not. Right.

infallibly or not. Right. >> Oh yeah. And if the church held to an

>> Oh yeah. And if the church held to an infallible standard today, like I would

infallible standard today, like I would I would abandon the church. Like I

I would abandon the church. Like I wouldn't be a Latter Day Saint. I want

wouldn't be a Latter Day Saint. I want to piggyback on this because I think

to piggyback on this because I think it's really important that you know one

it's really important that you know one of the most important

of the most important things that you guys lay your claimments

things that you guys lay your claimments on and it part of the restoration is the

on and it part of the restoration is the temple. How vitally important the

temple. How vitally important the temple, the centrality of the temple is

temple, the centrality of the temple is in your church. And you're saying that

in your church. And you're saying that the Adam God doctrine was wrong, but it

the Adam God doctrine was wrong, but it was taught in the holy of the holiest

was taught in the holy of the holiest places of Mormonism. that that doctrine

places of Mormonism. that that doctrine was taught, the Adam God doctrine was

was taught, the Adam God doctrine was taught

taught >> in the temple and and so for me I I as

>> in the temple and and so for me I I as an outsider you're understanding your

an outsider you're understanding your view of the temple how central it is

view of the temple how central it is that would be the equivalent in many

that would be the equivalent in many ways of defiling the temple by like

ways of defiling the temple by like sacrificing a pig in it in a Jewish

sacrificing a pig in it in a Jewish temple like to teach a false doctrine in

temple like to teach a false doctrine in the temple I think is is could

the temple I think is is could potentially be viewed as a very gracious

potentially be viewed as a very gracious thing and it would undermine I the

thing and it would undermine I the claimants of your church.

claimants of your church. >> Yeah. No, I think that that I'm I'm I'm

>> Yeah. No, I think that that I'm I'm I'm 100% in agreement that there are things

100% in agreement that there are things that were taught in the church that give

that were taught in the church that give people real pause to think about that.

people real pause to think about that. It comes down to what Colby said. How

It comes down to what Colby said. How much infallibility will you allow? Or

much infallibility will you allow? Or not infallibility, fallibility, like

not infallibility, fallibility, like mistakes will you allow before you

mistakes will you allow before you decide that you you don't think that's

decide that you you don't think that's reliable? Now, with all that in mind, I

reliable? Now, with all that in mind, I want to I want to ask a question to

want to I want to ask a question to especially the Protestants here. I feel

especially the Protestants here. I feel like Cole and I have been talking a lot

like Cole and I have been talking a lot and I'm actually very interested in the

and I'm actually very interested in the protest view on a few of these things.

protest view on a few of these things. >> Um, one of those is um,

>> Um, one of those is um, you know, from a Protestant perspective,

you know, from a Protestant perspective, like Joe Heshmire explicitly has said

like Joe Heshmire explicitly has said that that uh, essentially that

that that uh, essentially that Protestants believe in a great apostasy.

Protestants believe in a great apostasy. They just won't admit it. Um, one of the

They just won't admit it. Um, one of the real challenges that I see and and I

real challenges that I see and and I wonder how Protestants because I I'd

wonder how Protestants because I I'd almost feel like Protestants would want

almost feel like Protestants would want to be on our side with this because from

to be on our side with this because from a Protestant perspective, the vast

a Protestant perspective, the vast majority of Christians follow someone

majority of Christians follow someone that is teaching a false gospel,

that is teaching a false gospel, uh, the Pope, and that all of your

uh, the Pope, and that all of your original founders said was an

original founders said was an antichrist. So I I I look at Protestants

antichrist. So I I I look at Protestants and I have to ask like if most

and I have to ask like if most Christians even today are following

Christians even today are following someone whose doc who's teaching things

someone whose doc who's teaching things that are far worse than what Brigham

that are far worse than what Brigham Young taught essentially or at least is

Young taught essentially or at least is bad. How can you not say that most

bad. How can you not say that most Christians are or most of Christianity

Christians are or most of Christianity has fallen into some kind of an

has fallen into some kind of an apostasy?

apostasy? Well, this was the argument of the

Well, this was the argument of the Puritans and before that it was the

Puritans and before that it was the argument of the reformers. They didn't

argument of the reformers. They didn't want the they didn't want separation

want the they didn't want separation from the church. Um they they affirmed

from the church. Um they they affirmed ecclesiastical structures, they a lot of

ecclesiastical structures, they a lot of the arguments that you're making about

the arguments that you're making about final arbiters or referees, we'll call

final arbiters or referees, we'll call them theological referees. It wasn't

them theological referees. It wasn't that the reformers wanted to to

that the reformers wanted to to wholesale get rid of those things. They

wholesale get rid of those things. They just wanted to see um the restoration

just wanted to see um the restoration mainly of ethical behavior from Roman

mainly of ethical behavior from Roman Catholic leaders and particularly the

Catholic leaders and particularly the doctrine of salvation by faith. Right?

doctrine of salvation by faith. Right? They that was a big thing for Martin

They that was a big thing for Martin Luther and John Kelvin. But um I like to

Luther and John Kelvin. But um I like to say we got kicked out. We didn't we

say we got kicked out. We didn't we didn't leave. It was us that got pushed

didn't leave. It was us that got pushed out of communion with Rome. Y

out of communion with Rome. Y >> um and I I mean like I I would love to

>> um and I I mean like I I would love to have some kind of communion with Rome

have some kind of communion with Rome again. Um but I don't think that that's

again. Um but I don't think that that's going to happen. So yeah, we we look at

going to happen. So yeah, we we look at church history too and we see a bunch of

church history too and we see a bunch of the same signs that you do. Um I some of

the same signs that you do. Um I some of the things Oh, go on. I I guess one of

the things Oh, go on. I I guess one of my questions though is is that I don't

my questions though is is that I don't think that you want to have communion

think that you want to have communion with with Rome as Rome defines itself

with with Rome as Rome defines itself because the Roman Catholic Church and

because the Roman Catholic Church and see this is to say that but but do you

see this is to say that but but do you see what I'm saying here?

see what I'm saying here? >> If the Roman Catholic claim um to

>> If the Roman Catholic claim um to central and ultimate authority, they

central and ultimate authority, they need to abandon that in order to be in

need to abandon that in order to be in communion with with you guys. And so

communion with with you guys. And so this again I would say that

this again I would say that you you have to still admit that that

you you have to still admit that that there is no pre9 or 1500 denomination

there is no pre9 or 1500 denomination that you'd be in communion with.

that you'd be in communion with. And if that's the case I don't

And if that's the case I don't understand how that's different from

understand how that's different from saying that there was a great apostasy

saying that there was a great apostasy when there was no institutional church

when there was no institutional church with the fullness of the institution

with the fullness of the institution that existed

that existed >> for 1500 years.

>> for 1500 years. >> Yeah. So I I suppose now we're getting

>> Yeah. So I I suppose now we're getting into so the conversation is going to

into so the conversation is going to have to shift away from Roman Catholic

have to shift away from Roman Catholic views to Protestant views. And one of

views to Protestant views. And one of the things that is very apparent to me

the things that is very apparent to me as a Protestant is that both Roman

as a Protestant is that both Roman Catholics and Latter-day Saints um do

Catholics and Latter-day Saints um do they they make a distinction between um

they they make a distinction between um people that are pursuing God, people

people that are pursuing God, people that are given certain um you know

that are given certain um you know amounts of light or brilliance. So, in

amounts of light or brilliance. So, in Latter- Day Saint views, you might have

Latter- Day Saint views, you might have people that don't know the gospel, but

people that don't know the gospel, but they have the light of Christ, and so

they have the light of Christ, and so they're compelled to do things that are

they're compelled to do things that are moral and pleasing to God. Uh, I think

moral and pleasing to God. Uh, I think Roman Catholics consider people like me

Roman Catholics consider people like me like friends of God or uh but I've got

like friends of God or uh but I've got to go through purgatory or something

to go through purgatory or something like that first because I'm outside of

like that first because I'm outside of the institutional community. And the

the institutional community. And the same thing with Latter Day Saints, like

same thing with Latter Day Saints, like I'm outside of institutional community

I'm outside of institutional community as well. So that distinction between

as well. So that distinction between um people that are are considered

um people that are are considered Christians because they've heard and

Christians because they've heard and responded to the gospel but are

responded to the gospel but are separated from some kind of institution

separated from some kind of institution in which that's housed. Protestants, we

in which that's housed. Protestants, we don't really think it about it in that

don't really think it about it in that in that way, right? It we're not as

in that way, right? It we're not as concerned that there is some kind of

concerned that there is some kind of institutional

institutional representation

representation of the Christian faith. We're totally

of the Christian faith. We're totally fine with there being a collection of

fine with there being a collection of small churches or even groups of

small churches or even groups of churches that are bound together in

churches that are bound together in agreement with um like very basic things

agreement with um like very basic things that you might see in say the apostles

that you might see in say the apostles creed and the anticipation that we would

creed and the anticipation that we would see um the fruit of that in your

see um the fruit of that in your morality in your ethics. So when I when

morality in your ethics. So when I when I'm listening to this debate about which

I'm listening to this debate about which institution is right, it to me it's it

institution is right, it to me it's it it is totally just watching

it is totally just watching >> missing point.

>> missing point. >> Yeah. Well well no I I mean personally

>> Yeah. Well well no I I mean personally Yeah. But like the the analogy I was

Yeah. But like the the analogy I was going to use is it's like I'm watching

going to use is it's like I'm watching two boxers in a ring that I could never

two boxers in a ring that I could never get get in on because I'm just not

get get in on because I'm just not trained in that way. I don't think that

trained in that way. I don't think that way. Uh and and even if I tried to crawl

way. Uh and and even if I tried to crawl up in there, I'd probably get my lights

up in there, I'd probably get my lights knocked out. Um, so,

knocked out. Um, so, >> oh, so, and I, so I understand that and

>> oh, so, and I, so I understand that and and the way that I understand it, and I

and the way that I understand it, and I just want to make sure I understand

just want to make sure I understand properly is that the Protestant view of

properly is that the Protestant view of the church isn't of a church as an

the church isn't of a church as an institution, but an in but a church as a

institution, but an in but a church as a body of believers ultimately is is what

body of believers ultimately is is what it is.

it is. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. >> And so that's and and I actually agree

>> And so that's and and I actually agree that that's a valid definition of the

that that's a valid definition of the church. That's like when we say church,

church. That's like when we say church, we can mean that. And I think that a lot

we can mean that. And I think that a lot of times it does. In fact, one of the

of times it does. In fact, one of the things I pointed out in the debate to

things I pointed out in the debate to Joe was like, look, in the Protestant

Joe was like, look, in the Protestant sense of the body of believers, we don't

sense of the body of believers, we don't believe that that ever ceased to exist,

believe that that ever ceased to exist, right? We're talking entirely about an

right? We're talking entirely about an institutional apostasy. And so, it is

institutional apostasy. And so, it is something that for a Protestant isn't

something that for a Protestant isn't necessarily relevant. But there is sort

necessarily relevant. But there is sort of a question about you know both this

of a question about you know both this is where Catholics and Latter- Day

is where Catholics and Latter- Day Saints will get on the same team and

Saints will get on the same team and we'll look at the Protestant and go but

we'll look at the Protestant and go but wasn't the early church of the first

wasn't the early church of the first century institutionalized

century institutionalized with structures of authority that were

with structures of authority that were ultimately grounded in the authority of

ultimately grounded in the authority of the apostles with Peter being chief

the apostles with Peter being chief among them.

among them. >> Yes. And I still see a continuity of

>> Yes. And I still see a continuity of that structure. It's just not captured

that structure. It's just not captured in the Roman Catholic narrative.

in the Roman Catholic narrative. >> So who holds that? Who would you say

>> So who holds that? Who would you say holds that? And I'm sorry out of genuine

holds that? And I'm sorry out of genuine curiosity. Who would you say holds that

curiosity. Who would you say holds that same ultimate sort of petrine authority

same ultimate sort of petrine authority and is held it continually over time?

and is held it continually over time? >> Anybody that proclaims the gospel that

>> Anybody that proclaims the gospel that was declared by the apostles in the New

was declared by the apostles in the New Testament.

Testament. >> Yep.

>> Yep. >> Now, this is where this is where I think

>> Now, this is where this is where I think Oh, go ahead.

Oh, go ahead. >> Well, I just want to kind of interject,

>> Well, I just want to kind of interject, too, because I I represent I consider

too, because I I represent I consider myself kind of like a radical

myself kind of like a radical Protestant. So, I've been baptized into

Protestant. So, I've been baptized into Christianity here in the Manatee River,

Christianity here in the Manatee River, right by my house, by the local pastor,

right by my house, by the local pastor, but I have never formally joined a

but I have never formally joined a church because I do not believe in

church because I do not believe in church membership. Um, I believe in the

church membership. Um, I believe in the body. I'm part of the body.

body. I'm part of the body. >> We'll get Don't worry, we'll get you.

>> We'll get Don't worry, we'll get you. >> But but but my point is is that so so I

>> But but but my point is is that so so I I've had this radical position since I

I've had this radical position since I was a child. Like, I'm never going to

was a child. Like, I'm never going to join church because I don't think it's

join church because I don't think it's necessary in in in in my view of

necessary in in in in my view of Protestantism. But do I believe in

Protestantism. But do I believe in attending a church, having a pastor? As

attending a church, having a pastor? As a matter of fact, I've gone to Kyle.

a matter of fact, I've gone to Kyle. I've literally gone to Kyle and others.

I've literally gone to Kyle and others. I said, "Kyle,

I said, "Kyle, >> Kyle's a good one."

>> Kyle's a good one." >> And I I've gone to Kyle and said, "Kyle,

>> And I I've gone to Kyle and said, "Kyle, can you can you be a pastor to me at

can you can you be a pastor to me at times? Can you give me pastoral advice?

times? Can you give me pastoral advice? Can you and I've and I've reached out to

Can you and I've and I've reached out to other pastors and said, I I need pastor

other pastors and said, I I need pastor and I have a local pastor now, too." And

and I have a local pastor now, too." And so for me that's that's all that's all

so for me that's that's all that's all the authority I need in my life is just

the authority I need in my life is just that pastoral because and again I also

that pastoral because and again I also look at it from you know there's a

look at it from you know there's a petrine view of the priesthood but I

petrine view of the priesthood but I take a Pauline view of the priesthood.

take a Pauline view of the priesthood. Uh I believe in the born again

Uh I believe in the born again experience that God you can have a

experience that God you can have a radical encounter with the divine in

radical encounter with the divine in many ways just like Joseph Smith did.

many ways just like Joseph Smith did. And I tell people what would later be

And I tell people what would later be called the first vision was Joseph Smith

called the first vision was Joseph Smith had a born again experience. And I

had a born again experience. And I believe that just like Paul having that

believe that just like Paul having that Damascus road experience that radically

Damascus road experience that radically transformed his life. That is he got his

transformed his life. That is he got his priesthood directly from Christ in in in

priesthood directly from Christ in in in so I I consider my priesthood using

so I I consider my priesthood using restorationist language from the Pauline

restorationist language from the Pauline line which can assert itself at any time

line which can assert itself at any time because the Holy Spirit can intervene at

because the Holy Spirit can intervene at any time. And so that's kind of how I

any time. And so that's kind of how I view it. And again I just want to step

view it. And again I just want to step back and kind of give you how like my

back and kind of give you how like my radical pro lens looks at all these

radical pro lens looks at all these authority claims. I think this is where

authority claims. I think this is where all of this comes full circle though

all of this comes full circle though because it really does now that I'm

because it really does now that I'm understanding your argument better,

understanding your argument better, Jacob. It really boils down to whether

Jacob. It really boils down to whether you believe in that like central

you believe in that like central adjudicating authority like the the

adjudicating authority like the the claim that that's necessary because if

claim that that's necessary because if that's part of your claims about um LDS

that's part of your claims about um LDS claims about the great apostate like if

claims about the great apostate like if that's incorporated in your definition I

that's incorporated in your definition I I guess I would kind of phrase it

I guess I would kind of phrase it differently like even the way it's in

differently like even the way it's in preach my gospel you kind of like in the

preach my gospel you kind of like in the first lesson right you build from this

first lesson right you build from this idea of this is the model that God uses

idea of this is the model that God uses he calls prophets over time this

he calls prophets over time this dispensationalism and I know you kind of

dispensationalism and I know you kind of did that in the debate. Then you move to

did that in the debate. Then you move to Christ Church and great apostasy in the

Christ Church and great apostasy in the LDS view. I think that's probably where

LDS view. I think that's probably where I still kind of see it as affirming the

I still kind of see it as affirming the consequent if I'm honest because it's

consequent if I'm honest because it's like if you can only not be affirming

like if you can only not be affirming the consequent because you're baking in

the consequent because you're baking in like your worldview by definition. Like

like your worldview by definition. Like this is the same thing Trent did to you

this is the same thing Trent did to you in the the debate you had with him about

in the the debate you had with him about the Book of Mormon. Like his argument

the Book of Mormon. Like his argument Mormonism is false or the Book of Mormon

Mormonism is false or the Book of Mormon is false because Catholicism is true was

is false because Catholicism is true was absurd. Like that's an absurd reversal

absurd. Like that's an absurd reversal of the burden of proof. I think Trent

of the burden of proof. I think Trent was a like I think you were operating

was a like I think you were operating completely in good faith. That was going

completely in good faith. That was going to be my next point. I just think there

to be my next point. I just think there were multiple times, and you correct me

were multiple times, and you correct me if I'm wrong, where I remember you

if I'm wrong, where I remember you saying things in the debate that seem to

saying things in the debate that seem to say, I'm conceding Mormonism for the

say, I'm conceding Mormonism for the purposes of this debate, and I just

purposes of this debate, and I just don't know if you can accurately say

don't know if you can accurately say that when you're baking like all of your

that when you're baking like all of your claims are premised on the LDS, the very

claims are premised on the LDS, the very specific LDS definitions. I can

specific LDS definitions. I can understand what you're saying. Like once

understand what you're saying. Like once we apply that then an a wicked atheist

we apply that then an a wicked atheist like me can you know adjudicate that

like me can you know adjudicate that within that worldview like looking for

within that worldview like looking for internal consistency. But I I guess how

internal consistency. But I I guess how do you think about that today? Like

do you think about that today? Like because I do remember you saying that

because I do remember you saying that multiple times and it doesn't seem like

multiple times and it doesn't seem like you can really say both of those things

you can really say both of those things at the same time.

at the same time. >> Let Kyle Yes. Let let me give one um one

>> Let Kyle Yes. Let let me give one um one example because this is one one thing

example because this is one one thing that I was hoping we would discuss too

that I was hoping we would discuss too on presuppositions. I I think there's

on presuppositions. I I think there's this um I don't know if it's a hangover

this um I don't know if it's a hangover from modernity that we just have to um

from modernity that we just have to um we have to trick ourselves into thinking

we have to trick ourselves into thinking that we don't bring any presuppositions

that we don't bring any presuppositions into argumentation or our thought

into argumentation or our thought process. So I I think it's something we

process. So I I think it's something we have to try to do for the sake of

have to try to do for the sake of objectivity but ultimately it's

objectivity but ultimately it's something that we can't do. So for

something that we can't do. So for example um Jacob you mentioned that um

example um Jacob you mentioned that um Joe's argument was uh going to depend

Joe's argument was uh going to depend largely on at times when he's talking

largely on at times when he's talking about uh the church in the Bible he

about uh the church in the Bible he means that it was the institution that

means that it was the institution that was started by the popes but at the same

was started by the popes but at the same time Joe could flip the mirror on you

time Joe could flip the mirror on you and to say that uh Jacob anytime he's

and to say that uh Jacob anytime he's talking about the church is presupposing

talking about the church is presupposing um the the primitive institution from

um the the primitive institution from the New Testament period that had to be

the New Testament period that had to be restored by Joseph Smith. So, it's not a

restored by Joseph Smith. So, it's not a matter of if we're like setting aside

matter of if we're like setting aside presuppositions. It's can we name them

presuppositions. It's can we name them and recognize that when we're we're

and recognize that when we're we're discussing and dialogue and debating

discussing and dialogue and debating that those are present and and need to

that those are present and and need to be taken into account.

be taken into account. >> So, if Joe had made that argument, I

>> So, if Joe had made that argument, I would have pushed back on it. I would

would have pushed back on it. I would have said, "No, I don't assume I'm not

have said, "No, I don't assume I'm not assuming Mormonism. I'm what I'm

assuming Mormonism. I'm what I'm assuming in that definition of the

assuming in that definition of the church is whatever existed at the time

church is whatever existed at the time of the of the first century

of the of the first century historically." Okay? And I would argue

historically." Okay? And I would argue that that uh that that particular

that that uh that that particular institution

institution uh did have a central uh authority. Um

uh did have a central uh authority. Um actually one of the things that I really

actually one of the things that I really appreciated about Joe and I and I threw

appreciated about Joe and I and I threw this out um to him. Let me let me share

this out um to him. Let me let me share something real quick uh while we're

something real quick uh while we're talking about sort of this central

talking about sort of this central authority idea. Um,

authority idea. Um, so Joe Joe has this book Pope Peter,

so Joe Joe has this book Pope Peter, which frankly I I told everyone to go

which frankly I I told everyone to go read because he what he does is in this

read because he what he does is in this book he he his entire thesis of the book

book he he his entire thesis of the book is to try and argue that Peter held a

is to try and argue that Peter held a unique authority in the early church. Um

unique authority in the early church. Um he he points out that Jesus says that he

he he points out that Jesus says that he will give singular you he's talking to

will give singular you he's talking to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He when he's talking to Peter, he

He when he's talking to Peter, he says,"I have prayed for you that your

says,"I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail." Uh, and when uh

faith may not fail." Uh, and when uh when you have turned again, strengthen

when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. In other words, he says

your brethren. In other words, he says that Satan will attack all of the the

that Satan will attack all of the the the 12. But then he looks over to Peter

the 12. But then he looks over to Peter and he says, "But you have to strengthen

and he says, "But you have to strengthen your brethren." Like, you're the one in

your brethren." Like, you're the one in charge here. Peter gets the new name,

charge here. Peter gets the new name, right? This is a pattern in the Bible of

right? This is a pattern in the Bible of God renaming

God renaming sort of figureheads of different time

sort of figureheads of different time periods. Peter is always named first

periods. Peter is always named first when and Judas is named last. And this

when and Judas is named last. And this doesn't just seem to be like he just

doesn't just seem to be like he just happens to name him first. He's named

happens to name him first. He's named first for a reason. Paul is singled out

first for a reason. Paul is singled out repeatedly even when uh when disagreeing

repeatedly even when uh when disagreeing with him by Paul. Um why is he talking

with him by Paul. Um why is he talking about Peter so much is because Peter

about Peter so much is because Peter held some sort of a unique thing. Now,

held some sort of a unique thing. Now, none of these things all by themselves

none of these things all by themselves are are I think a good theory, but I

are are I think a good theory, but I think if you have all of them together,

think if you have all of them together, you know, Peter uniquely named, uniquely

you know, Peter uniquely named, uniquely commissioned, uniquely prayed for,

commissioned, uniquely prayed for, uniquely entrusted with keys, uniquely

uniquely entrusted with keys, uniquely active in Acts, I think that that shows

active in Acts, I think that that shows and and Joe compellingly argues that

and and Joe compellingly argues that Peter is portrayed as someone who's

Peter is portrayed as someone who's first among the apostles with with some

first among the apostles with with some real governing authority. And even

real governing authority. And even Protestants like um Aan Ortland have

Protestants like um Aan Ortland have have sort of said that yeah, Peter did

have sort of said that yeah, Peter did have some kind of a special authority.

have some kind of a special authority. So

So again, I understand that Protestants are

again, I understand that Protestants are looking at this going, we just disagree

looking at this going, we just disagree with the whole presuppositions of of the

with the whole presuppositions of of the whole debate that are coming to the the

whole debate that are coming to the the table here from both sides. But I'm also

table here from both sides. But I'm also speaking with a Catholic. And when we're

speaking with a Catholic. And when we're talking about the great apostasy, I'm

talking about the great apostasy, I'm going to usually talk about it with an

going to usually talk about it with an with a Catholic because we have that

with a Catholic because we have that same sort of a frame of reference of an

same sort of a frame of reference of an institution being needed and not only an

institution being needed and not only an institution, but an institution that

institution, but an institution that must have an ultimate adjudicating

must have an ultimate adjudicating authority and and we both agree that

authority and and we both agree that Peter was the original adjudicating

Peter was the original adjudicating authority. Like there's so much area of

authority. Like there's so much area of agreement and then it's just a matter of

agreement and then it's just a matter of okay,

okay, did that actually continue? The

did that actually continue? The Catholics are the the Catholic Church is

Catholics are the the Catholic Church is the the institution that makes the claim

the the institution that makes the claim that would refute as Colby pointed out

that would refute as Colby pointed out that that if the papacy were true, then

that that if the papacy were true, then there would be no great apostasy. And

there would be no great apostasy. And >> isn't that only one way they can do that

>> isn't that only one way they can do that though, Jacob, because the way I was

though, Jacob, because the way I was understand and again not an expert in

understand and again not an expert in early church history. I think all three

early church history. I think all three of you know much more about that than

of you know much more about that than me. Um, but I think the way I was at

me. Um, but I think the way I was at least understanding Joe's argument is he

least understanding Joe's argument is he was basically saying he can agree with

was basically saying he can agree with all of that about Peter's unique calling

all of that about Peter's unique calling and can agree for the need for

and can agree for the need for institutional hierarchy or authority.

institutional hierarchy or authority. But they basically believe that that

But they basically believe that that hierarchy or the way it worked evolved

hierarchy or the way it worked evolved over time and that those evolutions were

over time and that those evolutions were a basically authorized is the way I was

a basically authorized is the way I was understanding his argument. If if Joe

understanding his argument. If if Joe had made that case, he would have gotten

had made that case, he would have gotten shellacked because Vatican 1 explicitly

shellacked because Vatican 1 explicitly and dogmatically defines what the papacy

and dogmatically defines what the papacy is and it says that it's it hasn't that

is and it says that it's it hasn't that the that the Vatican 1 understanding of

the that the Vatican 1 understanding of the papacy has been the continual

the papacy has been the continual understanding in the great tradition all

understanding in the great tradition all the way back. So they that the idea of

the way back. So they that the idea of doctrinal development is something that

doctrinal development is something that for Latter-day Saints with ongoing

for Latter-day Saints with ongoing revelation you can get away with. With

revelation you can get away with. With Catholics, here's the thing. They'll

Catholics, here's the thing. They'll claim a new doctrine like the assumption

claim a new doctrine like the assumption of Mary and then when you ask them well

of Mary and then when you ask them well where did you get this they'll say the

where did you get this they'll say the tradition when you ask them where in the

tradition when you ask them where in the tradition they're just like trust me bro

tradition they're just like trust me bro and so what happens is is they

and so what happens is is they essentially reveal new things new

essentially reveal new things new doctrines and dogmas

doctrines and dogmas and then when you ask them where they

and then when you ask them where they got it from they say it wasn't revealed

got it from they say it wasn't revealed to us it was always part of the

to us it was always part of the tradition even though the tradition

tradition even though the tradition itself nowhere in the first four

itself nowhere in the first four centuries of the church or or even talk

centuries of the church or or even talk about the bodily assumption of Mary

about the bodily assumption of Mary anywhere. So if you're not getting it

anywhere. So if you're not getting it from the tradition that actually exists,

from the tradition that actually exists, where are you guys getting this from?

where are you guys getting this from? And then the pope literally just is

And then the pope literally just is like, I am tradition. This is what it

like, I am tradition. This is what it is, and I'm declaring it infallibly. And

is, and I'm declaring it infallibly. And so what they're doing is they're they're

so what they're doing is they're they're they're producing revelation, but then

they're producing revelation, but then they're saying it's not revelation. It

they're saying it's not revelation. It was always the tradition.

was always the tradition. >> I see. So it's the difference in the

>> I see. So it's the difference in the claim. You feel like if like Latter- Day

claim. You feel like if like Latter- Day Saints are able to if they just claimed

Saints are able to if they just claimed that yeah, we changed things and yeah,

that yeah, we changed things and yeah, it's authorized. Although I would say

it's authorized. Although I would say Mormonism kind of has a messy history on

Mormonism kind of has a messy history on that also, but we can set that aside for

that also, but we can set that aside for a second. It's that difference in the

a second. It's that difference in the claim is what you're saying.

claim is what you're saying. >> Okay.

>> Okay. >> Okay. Uh Kobe, I know

>> Okay. Uh Kobe, I know >> I'm getting I'm getting down to it here.

>> I'm getting I'm getting down to it here. I probably got about 10 minutes before I

I probably got about 10 minutes before I got a I got a butt.

got a I got a butt. >> But but so okay,

>> But but so okay, basically Kobe, you should just cover

basically Kobe, you should just cover whatever you feel in that PowerPoint

whatever you feel in that PowerPoint that

that >> Well, I'm really glad we've covered as

>> Well, I'm really glad we've covered as much as we have. I guess my one last

much as we have. I guess my one last question, Jacob, is in when and I can

question, Jacob, is in when and I can understand, you know, responding to Joe

understand, you know, responding to Joe calling you dishonest. I don't think as

calling you dishonest. I don't think as we've talked about, I don't think that's

we've talked about, I don't think that's what was going on here. I think maybe

what was going on here. I think maybe there was just if I had my chance to

there was just if I had my chance to invite you to think about one thing is

invite you to think about one thing is just did you really set aside your

just did you really set aside your presuppositions as much as maybe they

presuppositions as much as maybe they understood you were in the framing of

understood you were in the framing of the debate. But one of the things you

the debate. But one of the things you claimed in those responses back and

claimed in those responses back and forth is that you said multiple times

forth is that you said multiple times like Joe didn't understand LDS claims

like Joe didn't understand LDS claims about the great apostasy or if he didn't

about the great apostasy or if he didn't clearly understand them then he's going

clearly understand them then he's going to feel like I was coming out of left

to feel like I was coming out of left field. So from my perspective kind of as

field. So from my perspective kind of as the only former Mormon here, that was a

the only former Mormon here, that was a little crazy to claim to me because Joe

little crazy to claim to me because Joe in the debate cited first lesson of

in the debate cited first lesson of preach my gospel which is like literally

preach my gospel which is like literally what the church sends missionaries out

what the church sends missionaries out to teach people to join the church. He

to teach people to join the church. He was quoting from the first lesson on

was quoting from the first lesson on great apostasy. He cited the official

great apostasy. He cited the official LDS church website page on great

LDS church website page on great apostasy. I think the one that you cited

apostasy. I think the one that you cited earlier. He had statements from Joseph

earlier. He had statements from Joseph Smith's 1838 first vision account. I

Smith's 1838 first vision account. I guess

guess >> do you have the do you have the specific

>> do you have the do you have the specific ones that he said? I mean, I'd be

ones that he said? I mean, I'd be interested to see what what definitions

interested to see what what definitions he's bringing about that somehow

he's bringing about that somehow contradict mine because if we're

contradict mine because if we're operating under the same uh definition

operating under the same uh definition of apostasy, I think it should be clear

of apostasy, I think it should be clear why I approached the debate the way that

why I approached the debate the way that I did. So, what what was the difference

I did. So, what what was the difference in the way he defined apostasy versus

in the way he defined apostasy versus the way that I did?

the way that I did? Well, you have to I mean I can look at

Well, you have to I mean I can look at the transcript, but I'm kind of asking

the transcript, but I'm kind of asking for your understanding. You said that

for your understanding. You said that Joe didn't understand LDS screams about

Joe didn't understand LDS screams about the great apostasy. And I guess when I'm

the great apostasy. And I guess when I'm seeing that he cited preach my gospel,

seeing that he cited preach my gospel, the official LDS church position,

the official LDS church position, multiple prophet statements. He had

multiple prophet statements. He had quote quotes from Spencer Kimell at the

quote quotes from Spencer Kimell at the very least. I remember that just seems

very least. I remember that just seems like a really difficult like Yeah. The

like a really difficult like Yeah. The first vision including the words of

first vision including the words of Christ as recorded by Joseph Smith.

Christ as recorded by Joseph Smith. according to Joseph Smith. I guess that

according to Joseph Smith. I guess that just seems like a really difficult road

just seems like a really difficult road to hoe to claim that Joe didn't

to hoe to claim that Joe didn't understand LDS claims about the great

understand LDS claims about the great apostasy then when that was like the

apostasy then when that was like the prime evidence he cited to.

prime evidence he cited to. >> I would even say a lot of Latter-day

>> I would even say a lot of Latter-day Saints don't understand the the the the

Saints don't understand the the the the specifics of what the great apostasy is.

specifics of what the great apostasy is. I hear a lot of Latter- Day Saints. I

I hear a lot of Latter- Day Saints. I hear a lot of Latter Day Saint and and I

hear a lot of Latter Day Saint and and I I'll be the first one to criticize the

I'll be the first one to criticize the church to say that I don't think we we

church to say that I don't think we we teach it I I I think we teach it

teach it I I I think we teach it um in ways that can be misunderstood is

um in ways that can be misunderstood is the is probably the better way to do it.

the is probably the better way to do it. this idea of a central authority because

this idea of a central authority because I had to sort of take what the church's

I had to sort of take what the church's definitions are and I had to kind of

definitions are and I had to kind of distill it down and try and communicate

distill it down and try and communicate it to an audience that isn't familiar

it to an audience that isn't familiar with sort of LDS parlance to try to get

with sort of LDS parlance to try to get to the essence of what is being claimed

to the essence of what is being claimed and so far as I could tell the essence

and so far as I could tell the essence of what the church is claiming is that

of what the church is claiming is that there is a loss of ultimate central

there is a loss of ultimate central authority that then lead and because

authority that then lead and because that is lost you then get schism and

that is lost you then get schism and doctrinal drift over time and that's

doctrinal drift over time and that's what happened in history and what we

what happened in history and what we call that history, the history of

call that history, the history of Christian ecclesiology over over time,

Christian ecclesiology over over time, we call that the great apostasy. So

we call that the great apostasy. So what definition was Joe operating on? I

what definition was Joe operating on? I think the reason I said that I don't

think the reason I said that I don't think Joe understood what we were

think Joe understood what we were claiming wasn't because he he didn't

claiming wasn't because he he didn't like read what the church said. It's

like read what the church said. It's that I think that he didn't understand

that I think that he didn't understand the implications as it related to my

the implications as it related to my arguments. Because when you understand

arguments. Because when you understand the way I'm defining the great apostasy

the way I'm defining the great apostasy as this loss of central authority and

as this loss of central authority and that the Catholic Church is the only one

that the Catholic Church is the only one who can claim a continuous existence of

who can claim a continuous existence of that central authority um as essential

that central authority um as essential to the claim of a great apostasy I'm

to the claim of a great apostasy I'm just like Joe again I'm sitting there

just like Joe again I'm sitting there going I ask ask you guys ask anyone like

going I ask ask you guys ask anyone like did Joe define it differently like how

did Joe define it differently like how did Joe define the great apostasy and I

did Joe define the great apostasy and I know for a fact that he has defined it

know for a fact that he has defined it previously

previously as the complete loss of all Christians

as the complete loss of all Christians in Christianity. Like total like there

in Christianity. Like total like there were no he he literally said that those

were no he he literally said that those people that were Christian that that

people that were Christian that that that were Christians, they were LDS

that were Christians, they were LDS think they were only pretending to be

think they were only pretending to be Christians. And so it seemed as though

Christians. And so it seemed as though he's making these claims that just

he's making these claims that just aren't consistent with what we with what

aren't consistent with what we with what we teach or believe. Like we believe

we teach or believe. Like we believe quite frankly that there has been a

quite frankly that there has been a continual existence of Christians ever

continual existence of Christians ever since the time of Christ in the body of

since the time of Christ in the body of believers. But our claim is just that

believers. But our claim is just that the fullness of the institution uh was

the fullness of the institution uh was eventually uh you know collapsed and and

eventually uh you know collapsed and and ultimately that needed to be restored.

ultimately that needed to be restored. So

So >> okay I'll maybe just my last little

>> okay I'll maybe just my last little thought and then I'll turn it over to

thought and then I'll turn it over to Kyle for the last few minutes if he has

Kyle for the last few minutes if he has anything else he wanted to hit. But I

anything else he wanted to hit. But I guess my one last thought is, you know,

guess my one last thought is, you know, I guess I just think about the way you

I guess I just think about the way you kind of like I'm understanding your

kind of like I'm understanding your position, but frankly, it sounds to me

position, but frankly, it sounds to me like you basically defined the terms of

like you basically defined the terms of the debate, at least in your mind. And

the debate, at least in your mind. And I'm not saying that this was, you know,

I'm not saying that this was, you know, maybe it was subconscious or or you

maybe it was subconscious or or you weren't recognizing it, but it very much

weren't recognizing it, but it very much sounds to me as an outsider like you're

sounds to me as an outsider like you're saying under the terms of the debate, if

saying under the terms of the debate, if you're not able to prove you win, I win.

you're not able to prove you win, I win. That's what it sounds like because

That's what it sounds like because you're hang hanging everything on the

you're hang hanging everything on the LDS claims about the great apostasy and

LDS claims about the great apostasy and especially when there were multiple

especially when there were multiple times in the debate and the live

times in the debate and the live discussion where you said like this

discussion where you said like this isn't about Mormonism. Everything

isn't about Mormonism. Everything anyone's ever said about Mormonism could

anyone's ever said about Mormonism could be false and I would be making the same

be false and I would be making the same argument. I just don't know that that I

argument. I just don't know that that I guess I just would suggest you think

guess I just would suggest you think about the extent of that because I it

about the extent of that because I it seems very inconsistent from an

seems very inconsistent from an outsers's perspective. And and I will

outsers's perspective. And and I will admit right now, one of the mistakes I

admit right now, one of the mistakes I made in this debate was coming out

made in this debate was coming out swinging on the papacy without first

swinging on the papacy without first defining all the terms. I one of the

defining all the terms. I one of the things is is I I this is one of those

things is is I I this is one of those things I study the argument out myself.

things I study the argument out myself. >> Sure.

>> Sure. >> And I come up with like, okay, this is

>> And I come up with like, okay, this is the argument. This is all this, but I

the argument. This is all this, but I don't realize that other people haven't

don't realize that other people haven't gone through that same thought process,

gone through that same thought process, >> right?

>> right? >> That I've been thinking about for by

>> That I've been thinking about for by that point by the time I wrote my

that point by the time I wrote my opening statement for two months of

opening statement for two months of thinking about this. So, um, I think I

thinking about this. So, um, I think I could have communicated some of that

could have communicated some of that better. With that in mind, um, I I the

better. With that in mind, um, I I the the approach that I took was that we

the approach that I took was that we have the LDS claims about a great

have the LDS claims about a great apostasy. What are those? I tried to

apostasy. What are those? I tried to distill those down into this loss of

distill those down into this loss of central authority leads to schism and

central authority leads to schism and drift. And then I said, would I believe

drift. And then I said, would I believe this even if Joseph Smith's claims were

this even if Joseph Smith's claims were false? Would I believe that no one can

false? Would I believe that no one can claim a continual institution that goes

claim a continual institution that goes back all the way to Peter? And I would

back all the way to Peter? And I would agree with the Protestants here that

agree with the Protestants here that yeah, that's if I were an atheist, I

yeah, that's if I were an atheist, I would be on team Protestant to say that

would be on team Protestant to say that the Catholics are wrong when they claim

the Catholics are wrong when they claim a continuous institutional authority

a continuous institutional authority that was centralized.

that was centralized. >> I would agree with the Latter Day Saints

>> I would agree with the Latter Day Saints that it did exist though in the original

that it did exist though in the original church. And I guess what I'm saying is

church. And I guess what I'm saying is it seems like the only way from what I'm

it seems like the only way from what I'm hearing you clarify today, the only way

hearing you clarify today, the only way really for Joe to win the debate was to

really for Joe to win the debate was to question your first premise was to argue

question your first premise was to argue against the LDS definitions of what the

against the LDS definitions of what the great apostasy is, which is pretty hard

great apostasy is, which is pretty hard to do when and again, you know,

to do when and again, you know, hindsight's 2020 when you didn't really

hindsight's 2020 when you didn't really clearly define like this is all that's

clearly define like this is all that's entailed in what I mean by LDS crimes

entailed in what I mean by LDS crimes about the great apostasy. Anyways, Kyle,

about the great apostasy. Anyways, Kyle, I'll give you the rest of the time.

I'll give you the rest of the time. Sorry.

Sorry. >> Yeah. Well, I I know I know we're

>> Yeah. Well, I I know I know we're wrapping up, so thanks everybody for

wrapping up, so thanks everybody for hopping on. I thought this was a really

hopping on. I thought this was a really great conversation, and if you've stuck

great conversation, and if you've stuck with us um and be listeners thus far, I

with us um and be listeners thus far, I hope it's paid off. Uh the reason I like

hope it's paid off. Uh the reason I like this conversation is because I think

this conversation is because I think when you get I I do a lot of interfaith

when you get I I do a lot of interfaith work and when we get into the interfaith

work and when we get into the interfaith space, a lot of the um presumptions is

space, a lot of the um presumptions is that we differ because of what we

that we differ because of what we believe and then how we behave. So it's

believe and then how we behave. So it's it's orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but at

it's orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but at the end of the day, it's issues of

the end of the day, it's issues of authority. And so this the debate that

authority. And so this the debate that you had with Joe and the conversation

you had with Joe and the conversation that we're having right now goes

that we're having right now goes straight to the core issue. And I think

straight to the core issue. And I think as people are seeing how this

as people are seeing how this conversation unfolds, it's wrestling

conversation unfolds, it's wrestling with who's God and who gets to say so.

with who's God and who gets to say so. And it's that who gets to say so is uh

And it's that who gets to say so is uh why we differ so much. So um just a like

why we differ so much. So um just a like meta commentary on this whole

meta commentary on this whole conversation. I've enjoyed it. Um, but I

conversation. I've enjoyed it. Um, but I do wish in the debate of as Kobe was

do wish in the debate of as Kobe was saying like we we could have teased out

saying like we we could have teased out from you more, Jacob, what what do we

from you more, Jacob, what what do we mean by the great apostasy? Because on

mean by the great apostasy? Because on the one hand, I agree with you. I I

the one hand, I agree with you. I I don't think Joe recognized or

don't think Joe recognized or appreciated any of the nuance that

appreciated any of the nuance that Latter-day Saints in especially in

Latter-day Saints in especially in recent years has brought to bear on the

recent years has brought to bear on the definition of the great apostasy. If

definition of the great apostasy. If you're going back to the early years of

you're going back to the early years of the church, of course you're going to

the church, of course you're going to walk away from some really rigid um

walk away from some really rigid um really uh specific language that's

really uh specific language that's that's in condemnation. Um but at the

that's in condemnation. Um but at the same time, I don't I don't think it's

same time, I don't I don't think it's it's uh it's it's right to to throw away

it's uh it's it's right to to throw away that weight uh alto together. Right? I

that weight uh alto together. Right? I if I read the 1832

if I read the 1832 first vision account, there's some

first vision account, there's some extremely strong language from the son

extremely strong language from the son of God about the state, not just of

of God about the state, not just of creeds and beliefs, but of the people

creeds and beliefs, but of the people who held them and believed to them. And

who held them and believed to them. And I know there's been a lot of really good

I know there's been a lot of really good work that's been done on the historical

work that's been done on the historical context that Joseph Smith uh captured um

context that Joseph Smith uh captured um the the 1832 account. So not necessarily

the the 1832 account. So not necessarily 1820 in the vision, but how he was

1820 in the vision, but how he was describing it in 1832 under intense

describing it in 1832 under intense amount of persecution and opposition to

amount of persecution and opposition to him, but at the same time there are

him, but at the same time there are things that are said in there that that

things that are said in there that that really press on a person to make a

really press on a person to make a decision whether they're going to stay

decision whether they're going to stay in a state of great apostasy or they're

in a state of great apostasy or they're going to join the LDS church. And so I

going to join the LDS church. And so I when whenever where we have

when whenever where we have conversations about the great apostasy I

conversations about the great apostasy I I'm both grateful and a little bit

I'm both grateful and a little bit nervous about softening the edges uh of

nervous about softening the edges uh of that language if that makes sense. So in

that language if that makes sense. So in the in the future I think it would be

the in the future I think it would be really great to hear where do you land

really great to hear where do you land on that that spectrum and in your

on that that spectrum and in your definition of a great apostasy.

definition of a great apostasy. >> Actually to be honest and and maybe this

>> Actually to be honest and and maybe this is kind of some of my final thoughts on

is kind of some of my final thoughts on this. First of all, I agree with you.

this. First of all, I agree with you. The conversation I Here's the thing

The conversation I Here's the thing that's actually been fun about this

that's actually been fun about this whole debate is it sparked a lot of

whole debate is it sparked a lot of conversation because it got people

conversation because it got people thinking about what you pointed out.

thinking about what you pointed out. This idea of claims to authority and why

This idea of claims to authority and why authority ultimately sort of adjudicates

authority ultimately sort of adjudicates people's religious life, whether that

people's religious life, whether that authority is the pope or the president

authority is the pope or the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of

of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or a particular

Latter-day Saints or a particular interpretation of the Bible. with the

interpretation of the Bible. with the Bible being the ultimate authority as it

Bible being the ultimate authority as it is for Protestants. So, this is a

is for Protestants. So, this is a central conversation and I'm glad that

central conversation and I'm glad that it sort of has sparked it because it's

it sort of has sparked it because it's like, hey, let's let's talk about it.

like, hey, let's let's talk about it. Why does authority matter? Who has it?

Why does authority matter? Who has it? Is it continual? You know, all that kind

Is it continual? You know, all that kind of stuff. I'm I and and so I'm very very

of stuff. I'm I and and so I'm very very glad that that has happened with and I

glad that that has happened with and I do not make a uh I don't want to soften

do not make a uh I don't want to soften the need for authority in terms of what

the need for authority in terms of what it means in terms of the life of the

it means in terms of the life of the believer because this stuff has real

believer because this stuff has real consequences. I am told by millions of

consequences. I am told by millions of people uh or maybe not directly but the

people uh or maybe not directly but the idea that you are going to hell Jacob

idea that you are going to hell Jacob Hansen why because my authority has said

Hansen why because my authority has said that Mormons go to hell and you know

that Mormons go to hell and you know whether that authority is the pope or

whether that authority is the pope or whether that authority is the way that

whether that authority is the way that your pastor interprets the Bible or

your pastor interprets the Bible or whatever it may be. So these have very

whatever it may be. So these have very real and practical consequences on the

real and practical consequences on the lives of the believers. I think even

lives of the believers. I think even Colby would be here and be like the

Colby would be here and be like the freaking president of the church says

freaking president of the church says stuff and it messes up people's lives.

stuff and it messes up people's lives. You know, I I we all can recognize that

You know, I I we all can recognize that the idea of religious authority is

the idea of religious authority is something that is critically important.

something that is critically important. Now,

Now, um as far as softening the edges on it

um as far as softening the edges on it at all, I also want to make sure that

at all, I also want to make sure that we're clear about what Latter-day Saints

we're clear about what Latter-day Saints do claim. You know, you have to

do claim. You know, you have to reconcile the history of Joseph saying

reconcile the history of Joseph saying that those professors are all corrupt,

that those professors are all corrupt, which I I actually agree theologically

which I I actually agree theologically they're corrupt. And I also agree that

they're corrupt. And I also agree that if it's referring to the uh to the the

if it's referring to the uh to the the Calvinist pastors and the others in his

Calvinist pastors and the others in his community that if it's referring to

community that if it's referring to them, I agree. Those guys were pretty

them, I agree. Those guys were pretty corrupt and I have some issues with

corrupt and I have some issues with them. Now, but you have to reconcile

them. Now, but you have to reconcile that statement with the fact that Joseph

that statement with the fact that Joseph Smith literally said that the Christian

Smith literally said that the Christian martyrs, and he was talking about the

martyrs, and he was talking about the Protestant Christian martyrs, by the

Protestant Christian martyrs, by the way, in Fox.

way, in Fox. >> Yes. Joseph is like, "They're all going

>> Yes. Joseph is like, "They're all going to be saved." Um, you have to deal with

to be saved." Um, you have to deal with the fact that the church in 1926 is out

the fact that the church in 1926 is out saying that God is using all different

saying that God is using all different peoples for the accomplishment of his

peoples for the accomplishment of his work. You have to deal with the fact

work. You have to deal with the fact that our own leaders today say that the

that our own leaders today say that the abomination uh was referring to the

abomination uh was referring to the creeds, not to the people who professed

creeds, not to the people who professed that were sincerely seeking Jesus. You

that were sincerely seeking Jesus. You have to deal with the fact that um that

have to deal with the fact that um that in the Book of Mormon itself, it's

in the Book of Mormon itself, it's praising, you know, the Catholic

praising, you know, the Catholic Columbus as like a hero uh who God works

Columbus as like a hero uh who God works through. The the enormous things that

through. The the enormous things that have been said about the Protestant

have been said about the Protestant reformers that were held in high regard

reformers that were held in high regard by the early church leaders. So yes,

by the early church leaders. So yes, authority matters. Being a member of the

authority matters. Being a member of the church in our view matters, but because

church in our view matters, but because of our unique theology of not heaven and

of our unique theology of not heaven and hell, we look at other faiths who we

hell, we look at other faiths who we believe don't have legitimate authority,

believe don't have legitimate authority, but we can still say you're at least

but we can still say you're at least moving people in the right direction.

moving people in the right direction. One of the reasons I genuinely think

One of the reasons I genuinely think that you have

that you have people like Mark Driscoll on one side

people like Mark Driscoll on one side is that they look at this and they say,

is that they look at this and they say, "These Mormons are taking people to hell

"These Mormons are taking people to hell for eternity and they are a threat.

for eternity and they are a threat. Latter-day Saints do not look that way

Latter-day Saints do not look that way at Catholics. We look at them and we

at Catholics. We look at them and we say, "You guys are moving people up the

say, "You guys are moving people up the ladder." You know, you're moving people

ladder." You know, you're moving people from like T-restrol to like a T-stral

from like T-restrol to like a T-stral existence or T-elestral to T- Restral.

existence or T-elestral to T- Restral. Like, you're moving people up. Like,

Like, you're moving people up. Like, keep it up, buddy. But we then say, but

keep it up, buddy. But we then say, but but and we're not apologetic about this

but and we're not apologetic about this and we should never be, but there's

and we should never be, but there's more. There is a fullness that we bring

more. There is a fullness that we bring to the table, an authority structure

to the table, an authority structure that's been restored that can drive

that's been restored that can drive people to another level. Now, obviously,

people to another level. Now, obviously, people will disagree with that. We can

people will disagree with that. We can fight about it. But the orientation

fight about it. But the orientation of a Latter-day Saint is fundamentally

of a Latter-day Saint is fundamentally not to see others as

not to see others as evil hell. You know, you're driving

evil hell. You know, you're driving people to hell where I think for a lot

people to hell where I think for a lot of Protestants when they look at

of Protestants when they look at Latter-day Saints, they're like, they

Latter-day Saints, they're like, they read the Bible and they're like, "Well,

read the Bible and they're like, "Well, if you guys don't believe in the right

if you guys don't believe in the right Jesus, then you go to hell." And you're

Jesus, then you go to hell." And you're threatening other people by teaching

threatening other people by teaching them to follow the wrong Jesus. And so

them to follow the wrong Jesus. And so they rightfully are concerned.

>> Well, I just want to say this was a great conversation and I and I don't

great conversation and I and I don't know if I said this at the beginning. I

know if I said this at the beginning. I I but I want to clarify here too. Um we

I but I want to clarify here too. Um we had already set this up, Kyle and Kobe

had already set this up, Kyle and Kobe and I to have this conversation this

and I to have this conversation this morning and I told them I said once we

morning and I told them I said once we get this set up I'm going to invite

get this set up I'm going to invite Jacob to come on.

Jacob to come on. And Jacob came on and he had the

And Jacob came on and he had the conversation. And I think that's to your

conversation. And I think that's to your credit and I think it it shows that

credit and I think it it shows that you're willing to have these

you're willing to have these conversations with somebody like Kobe,

conversations with somebody like Kobe, which people on the XMO community have

which people on the XMO community have been badgering you about for a long

been badgering you about for a long time. And

time. And >> we'll have to we'll have to keep talking

>> we'll have to we'll have to keep talking me and Kobe and find other topics that

me and Kobe and find other topics that we're willing to engage around. I'm I

we're willing to engage around. I'm I and and Kobe, I I want to thank you. I

and and Kobe, I I want to thank you. I think you were very fair and uh and good

think you were very fair and uh and good in this conversation. I appreciate it.

in this conversation. I appreciate it. >> Yeah, of course. I I sincerely

>> Yeah, of course. I I sincerely appreciate you being here, Jacob. Um I'm

appreciate you being here, Jacob. Um I'm yeah I and it's good to talk face to

yeah I and it's good to talk face to face and clarify some of these positions

face and clarify some of these positions because you know we can do stuff like

because you know we can do stuff like this. I think this is the key to when I

this. I think this is the key to when I say interfaith work about myself that

say interfaith work about myself that sounds weird but I think the key to

sounds weird but I think the key to interfaith work is is allowing people to

interfaith work is is allowing people to have honest discussions about the points

have honest discussions about the points where we agree where we disagree the way

where we agree where we disagree the way we see things differently. It doesn't

we see things differently. It doesn't have to be necessarily acrimonious. I

have to be necessarily acrimonious. I think, you know, as Jacob you were

think, you know, as Jacob you were talking about, one of the things I find

talking about, one of the things I find very beautiful about the Mormon

very beautiful about the Mormon tradition that I was raised in and no

tradition that I was raised in and no longer believe in is it does have these

longer believe in is it does have these polls towards universalism that

polls towards universalism that sometimes other faiths don't have as

sometimes other faiths don't have as strongly. Um, I think the one thing we

strongly. Um, I think the one thing we can agree on is that regardless of which

can agree on is that regardless of which faith tradition you come from, atheists

faith tradition you come from, atheists like me end up in the worst boat

like me end up in the worst boat eternally probably. So,

eternally probably. So, >> well, I believe they're going to I will

>> well, I believe they're going to I will not be surprised at all if when I go to

not be surprised at all if when I go to heaven, I see Christopher Hitchens. So,

heaven, I see Christopher Hitchens. So, I'm very broad on this thing. Uh, Kyle,

I'm very broad on this thing. Uh, Kyle, don't worry. I don't stress too much

don't worry. I don't stress too much about it. Just keep seeking truth.

about it. Just keep seeking truth. >> Put in a good word for me is what I'm

>> Put in a good word for me is what I'm saying, you guys.

saying, you guys. >> I will. I will.

>> I will. I will. >> That's great.

>> That's great. >> We all will, Colobby. We all will.

>> We all will, Colobby. We all will. >> Well, I'm going to wrap this up. Kyle,

>> Well, I'm going to wrap this up. Kyle, just real quick, uh, you got a book

just real quick, uh, you got a book coming out later this year. You just

coming out later this year. You just want to tell people about it because I

want to tell people about it because I think Jacob would love to probably have

think Jacob would love to probably have you on to talk about that book as well.

you on to talk about that book as well. >> Oh, um, Jacob, we got put on the spot. I

>> Oh, um, Jacob, we got put on the spot. I do. I have a a book called 40 questions

do. I have a a book called 40 questions about Mormonism which is published by um

about Mormonism which is published by um Craigall which is a traditional

Craigall which is a traditional Christian publisher uh in a series um of

Christian publisher uh in a series um of on the same title. So 40 questions about

on the same title. So 40 questions about New Testament, 40 questions about you

New Testament, 40 questions about you know trinitarianism whatever. And so the

know trinitarianism whatever. And so the the idea with this book was to be um

the idea with this book was to be um concise uh scholarly accessible

concise uh scholarly accessible charitable fairyic. It's not an

charitable fairyic. It's not an apologetics book. Um, it's taking 40

apologetics book. Um, it's taking 40 questions that I outsourced half of them

questions that I outsourced half of them just to ask people what they wanted me

just to ask people what they wanted me to answer. Um, so I'm really looking

to answer. Um, so I'm really looking forward to it coming out. I'm hoping it

forward to it coming out. I'm hoping it can be a resource to prompt um better uh

can be a resource to prompt um better uh interactions and conversations between

interactions and conversations between specifically evangelicals and Latter-day

specifically evangelicals and Latter-day Saints.

Saints. Okay, this is great folks. Let me tell

Okay, this is great folks. Let me tell you, I'm looking forward to the

you, I'm looking forward to the comments. And folks, in the comments,

comments. And folks, in the comments, let's keep it civil. This was a civil

let's keep it civil. This was a civil conversation. Let's have the comments be

conversation. Let's have the comments be civil. All right. And uh I think I I

civil. All right. And uh I think I I feel blessed that all four of us got

feel blessed that all four of us got together to come today. I think it was

together to come today. I think it was uplifting and good and it was important

uplifting and good and it was important to have this conversation and shows that

to have this conversation and shows that we can we're modeling here at NBR how

we can we're modeling here at NBR how this can happen and we can model this

this can happen and we can model this for the rest of the world to show that

for the rest of the world to show that we can bring people together and I think

we can bring people together and I think it's so important. So we have links in

it's so important. So we have links in the description to everything that we

the description to everything that we talked about. Uh don't forget to do the

talked about. Uh don't forget to do the code Mormon book reviews if you're

code Mormon book reviews if you're interested in getting this Echo uh water

interested in getting this Echo uh water bottle and uh we also have links in the

bottle and uh we also have links in the description for those of you who'd like

description for those of you who'd like to financially support us. We do greatly

to financially support us. We do greatly appreciate it. But remember, the most

appreciate it. But remember, the most important thing is this.

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:Jacob Hansen & Kolby Reddish Have a Conversation! w/ Dr. Kyle Beshears