Travis and Chuck revisit a discussion with an Atheist.

[00:00:24]and we're live.

[00:00:29]Let's see if anybody cares.

[00:00:33]So, um just to kind of break out what we're going to do, um I have a discussion. So, I talked to to my buddy Ashton here and um I thought that a a good topic for a live would be to review some of my old older discussions. And in fact, what I'm going to do is this one is one I've never actually published.

[00:00:56]So, I think only a few missionaries have ever seen this discussion. Um, everybody see what I'm saying? Ashton, look at the first comment. I need to know where you got that poster behind you.

[00:01:08]>> [laughter] >> That's awesome.

[00:01:11]>> So, let me tell you about the poster.

[00:01:13][laughter] Let's start off with that.

[00:01:15]This poster is awesome. It really is awesome. Everybody loves the poster.

[00:01:19]Everybody Everybody thinks it's sweet.

[00:01:21]But, um, the the difficulty with the poster is it's actually a piece of copyrighted material because I didn't produce it. And so, the difficulty with the poster is the company that created the poster is defunct. So, you can't order one. But it was like planofsalvationposters.com.

[00:01:43]Yeah, it's planof salalvationposters.com is what it's called. [gasps] And so that website is completely inactive. Does not work at all. And so you can't order one. But it's actually one of the more detailed schematics. Now there's I have some personal issues with this um poster because it does have what I think are some doctrinal miscalculations in it. But overall, it's a very good poster. It's got a lot of really great verses on it. So, you can see the writing on it. It goes through the whole plan of salvation. It does it in pretty good detail. Um, so if I reprint it, I will be violating somebody's copyright.

[00:02:22]So, but we could trim it.

[00:02:28]>> You could >> I could trim that little bottom off and then reprint it. But again, I the company doesn't exist and I have this one. So, um I don't know. I haven't I haven't priced out what it would cost to to actually print them um shrink them down or whatever because I think if you shrink it down much smaller than the size it is, I I think you'll miss what it is.

[00:02:49]But it's it's a it's a pretty awesome poster. I like this poster. I've had it for a very long I've had it for gosh 12 or 14 years probably.

[00:03:00]Never intended to have it like this. I just had it hanging in my house above my pool table for a while.

[00:03:05]Um, but my wife's like, "Can we can we not have the poster anymore?"

[00:03:10]So, because you know, you know how it is when your when your wife doesn't really believe in God and stuff. So, [laughter] because that's how it is, Ashton.

[00:03:18]Anytime they don't approve of what you do, that's because they're just non-believers.

[00:03:22]>> That's right, dude. That's That's what I >> Also, Chuck, what's up, man? Nice to meet you. Ashton here. Uh, you don't need to meet your face.

[00:03:34]>> I can't see your face yet.

[00:03:35]>> That's right.

[00:03:38]>> Some someday soon.

[00:03:41]>> Yeah, he's a he's a uh um he is a great guy. My good buddy Ashton here.

[00:03:52]So anyways, I was I was thinking as I was watching this that I found this um discussion [clears throat] that I had with this atheist agnostic fellow. He actually is not against believing in God.

[00:04:06]He doesn't have an issue specifically with there is no God. He's not saying that. So he is probably truly agnostic in that sense. But um um hold on.

[00:04:26]I wanted to share something funny and I got to find the clip real quick.

[00:04:31]Hold on a second.

[00:04:35]Oh, wait. I know who it is. I was trying to think of the name.

[00:04:46]So, this guy has the greatest um Oh crap, I have to watch the whole video. They don't have a clip of it.

[00:04:54]Anyways, there's this guy named um his last name is Dilman, but he's a legit black belt, and he did this thing where he believes in no touch knockouts that you can knock people out with by throwing a chiball at him. and he had his whole he had his whole martial arts studio convinced that if you throw a chiball at somebody, you could knock them out. So, of course, he had students that would come up and he would throw a chiball at him and they would fly back in ridiculous ways. And so, he he was going with it. And so, one of the like Discovery Channel came and was exploring this kind of phenomenon where people are claiming to have supernatural abilities. and they went to his studio and uh of course the scientist that that approaches it is not able to be knocked out. So he's like so his excuse for why he's not he's like well it could be that he was a total non-believer. He was a non-believer and so that's why he couldn't be knocked out because he was a non-believer but the way he says it's hilarious. So I think that's hilarious. So if you want to look that up, Dilman no touch knockout, watch the video. It's hilarious. So this guy is a non-believer. total non-believer and um I had a really good discussion with him. It actually it actually started off really well. It went a little bit hostile and then it ended okay. So um I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and the sound. Where is my There it is.

[00:06:27]And share sound.

[00:06:34]Make sure that that is acceptable.

[00:06:38][snorts] Everybody see that?

[00:06:44]How does it look on the live stream?

[00:06:47]Okay, people in the comments, please post to make sure I can you can see things and we can see things.

[00:06:51]>> I'm waiting for it to pop up.

[00:06:54]>> Yeah, the live stream.

[00:06:56]>> It's like >> half a minute behind. Yeah.

[00:06:59]>> Yeah. Yeah. But you can see it on your screens though.

[00:07:02]>> Yep. Yeah.

[00:07:03]>> Okay, cool.

[00:07:05]So, let me move this thing out of the way so it's not in my way and then I will do slideshow from beginning. Does that change it?

[00:07:19]What does that do to it?

[00:07:22]I think I want to stop that.

[00:07:28]Um, >> does that look weird on the >> No.

[00:07:31]>> Hold on a second.

[00:07:33]How did it look on the screen of the Oh, that looks terrible. It It does the two screen thing. So, we're not going to do that. Let's just do it this way.

[00:07:41]So, we'll just play it this way.

[00:07:44]>> Oh, yeah. Shows pull.

[00:07:46]>> Yeah. Yeah, that's not good. So, um, as long as we're on there. So, I guess it's just going to show one of us at a time, whoever's talking. So, we'll just work through it that way. So, I will I'll go ahead and play this. This is the beginning. Uh we had of course we had our pleasantries in our discussion and you you two are welcome to chime in and let me know what you think. Now the purpose of the live stream ultimately for those of you who are paying attention and listening um is to identify good and bad arguments and for me to kind of critique my own performance and also to get constructive criticism on my performance. Another issue is I've talked to to Ashton a couple of times and I don't think that people often get what I'm thinking or where I'm going with it. And I think that where that manifests is it looks like I am ignoring things or not saying things. So I notice in some of the uh comments people will say why didn't you use this verse? Why didn't you say this?

[00:08:45]Why didn't you say that? Right?

[00:08:48]I don't know if you've ever have you ever watched a video and and thought that.

[00:08:52]>> Yeah, I've Well, I've had a lot of people say that about mine, too. Or like they just type, I wish you would have said this. [laughter] >> And you're like, yeah, but I was thinking something different. It's like, yeah, I I I maybe you remembered it. Or actually, >> maybe you maybe you got it. Maybe you maybe you didn't.

[00:09:11]Right.

[00:09:12]>> Right.

[00:09:13]>> Maybe maybe you did remember it. Maybe you didn't. But there's a lot of times I It's not that I'm playing stupid. I'm not trying to play stupid. So, I don't think it's a good tactic or a good strategy to just play stupid. Make sure if you're asking questions about something that they're pointed and purposeful, that they're actually meaningful questions. So, don't don't just I don't know what you're talking about. Make make sure that you're actually engaged. Otherwise, they will just sense disingenuousness out of you.

[00:09:43]And the reason that that's a problem too, and Chuck, you've probably noticed this. If you are just asking questions to avoid supplying a substantive answer to a question, then what happens is they don't believe that if they share anything with you, it will be received.

[00:10:02]And we've all had conversations like that, right? where you're talking to somebody and they're just kind of biting their time to make a point and they and they're not really concerned with anything you have to say and they're not really interested in learning or listening to you. And if you do say something that's substantive, maybe something that they think that they're going to learn from, then you don't feel like it's going to be received anyway.

[00:10:27]So your your desire to share that thing is is greatly diminished. So I'm going to go ahead and start this with with Ben. you have anything to add, >> Travis? No, I'll just say quickly, Travis, as as we've discussed, um, you know, some of the conversations that you've had with others, you know, I'll ask you, hey, why didn't you X, Y, or Z?

[00:10:47]And oftentimes the answer is like, I'm playing a long game. Like, I know where your your perspective is. I know where I want the conversation to go and if we get bogged down on this point, it's not going to go where you want it to go. So, yeah.

[00:11:00]>> Right. Yeah. And I I think that that's that's what I'm trying to give insight into is um when you're when you're having a meaningful discussion. Now that again, the way you frame that too could often be off-putting, right? I'm playing the long game. I I like that phrasiology, but taken in the wrong context, that can sound also condescending that I am trying to play a longer game to get somewhere. Now, obviously, that's applicable to any conversation. Whenever you're engaged in a conversation, you're obviously trying to get somewhere with it, but your ultimate goal should be to make it a genuine conversation is to truly understand what the other person is meaning and where they're coming from.

[00:11:41]And that's how you would that's how you get it out. I am more interested in finding out what people believe and why they believe it than I am necessarily in any specific context with sharing my own beliefs. I'm I'm fascinated by the fact that people believe certain things and how and why they believe them. So recently on on my legal channel, I did a little short on on sovereign citizen type people. Those people are fascinating to me that they can actually buy into these ideologies and these belief systems that just to me are completely I'm at a loss for understanding why they do them. So with that said, let's go ahead and and we'll we'll read we'll watch this uh clip from Ben. And this is I don't know how many minutes the these each one of these are.

[00:12:21]And I've had some other uh I've had some, you know, some good friends who are, you know, affiliated with the LDS church and uh we got talking about oh belief systems and um you know confidence on where you stand.

[00:12:39]>> So I had previously asked this this guy Ben for his background. So that's what's >> um you know how you deal with uh inconsistencies and all that sort of stuff. we've just been having a pretty decent back and forth in uh in um just different perspectives on um you know pesology. So >> what's what's your background religiously?

[00:13:04]>> So I grew up very heavily uh heavily Baptist. My dad's a pastor. Um they have a church up in in Nova Scotia in Canada. Um, and I [sighs and gasps] I mean I was raised solidly Christian with a really heavy, you know, understanding of the Bible. My dad insisted on, you know, me reading it through. Um, I attended a uh a Christian college. Um though my uh I always had trouble with um the fact at first the fact that I was raised that way because uh just because you're born believing something doesn't mean that it's true. And so in my early teens I spent a lot of time um searching uh I did a deep dive into a whole bunch of different um religions, different sects of different religions.

[00:13:57]Read most of the world's holy books. uh talked with a great number of people who believe a great many things all across the world trying to uh get a sense of what might or might not be true. Um and then ultimately ended up coming to the conclusion that um nothing sufficiently demonstrates uh evidence to warrant uh 100% confidence in a belief system.

[00:14:25]Um, and so I guess today I would probably depending on the phrasing that you would use, you would either call me an agnostic or a soft atheist. Um, just uh I have not seen um evidence that demonstrates any of the claims that are made in any religion.

[00:14:42]So what what kind of evidence would you would you expect to see from a religious epistemology that would be substantive enough to accept or have any kind of an assurance that their claims are true.

[00:14:59]So that's um so yeah with that I one of the things that I I was trying to do I always try to do when somebody's an atheist is try to understand why they're an atheist because again >> is this guy a atheist at the time or did he >> Yes. Yeah, he he's >> a Baptist.

[00:15:22]>> Yeah, he Yeah, he was a Baptist. He explored world religions. I mean, it's a common story. I I hear after sharing my own bout with, you know, my struggle with with believing myself. Um, I've noticed a lot of people come out of the woodwork and I one of the things I liked about Ben, I wanted to highlight this discussion is that that story is very consistent and it does demonstrate a degree of critical thinking. Now, I think that as we go into the discussion a little bit more and view some more of these clips, you'll see that he has a lapse in critical thinking because he is applying the epistemological standard or the belief systems own internal system to everything he does.

[00:16:00]And I think that that's a mistake. So, um, Protestants have a view of the Bible. So, he takes that view of the Bible and applies it to it all the time.

[00:16:10]He takes Israelite belief systems as he understands them and imposes them on the text. So he's not critically thinking about here's this thing. Are these belief systems that currently exist consistent with that thing? Right? So is the is the Bible actually representing the actual beliefs that he's he's extrapolating from them? And I don't I don't know that he's doing that.

[00:16:37]Um, somebody has the plan of salvation poster link.

[00:16:46]>> I just I just found it.

[00:16:48]>> I just put it up.

[00:16:49]>> Oh, cool. Is it was on Redbubble?

[00:16:52]>> Yeah. And there's a couple variations.

[00:16:55]>> Cool. Sweet. That's awesome. Is And it's available as a poster, not just shirts.

[00:17:01]>> Uh, yeah. Stickers and uh >> Huh. Maybe that's what they did. They just went to Redbubble.

[00:17:07]So, so yeah, he gave a background. I did like that his story was was pretty consistent and it does does demonstrate um and I again it sounds counterproductive to faith to tell people who are raised Latter-day Saints to question their beliefs, but that's how we grow. It is not a good idea to simply believe because you were raised in the church. That's not sufficient.

[00:17:28]That will not carry you through the day.

[00:17:30]You will not be able to sustain a lifelong active faithful testimony simply by just I just believe. You've got to at some point in your life, whether it's earlier or later, look back and say, why do I believe this? What what is it about this that's drawing me in?

[00:17:50]So, I'll go ahead and uh share the Hold on.

[00:18:02]share the next one.

[00:18:04]So, does God exist? Right. Um the the claim is [snorts] the claim that uh there is a god is in and of itself unfalsifiable.

[00:18:19]Uh it it can't be proven. There's no test that you can demonstrate to it.

[00:18:24]>> Now, I pay attention to this. This is a common complaint that is so it's problematic for a couple of different reasons with something being quote unfalsifiable and to make a make a claim that religious perspectives are unfalsifiable. So obviously and he does give a great example and I'll let it play and you can hear the example. The example is actually pretty good. But if you look at the example that he provides, the the issue is is that he's claiming already that belief stems from a decision a person makes. But he doesn't want to acknowledge that that's the most crucial element in at least the LDS perspective of the gospel. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ first takes a choice to make a commitment. I mean, Christ doesn't force, he he influences through the spirit for us to follow after him, but he doesn't force. He doesn't he doesn't threaten and in in a in an objective way anyway. There could be some, you know, repenttor or else kind of an idea, but it's not really something that is clearly objectively falsifiable.

[00:19:37]>> But if you begin with an assertion that it's true, um, it can lead you down. Well, the millions of different religions.

[00:19:45]>> See, and again, I I don't agree with that. I don't I don't agree. You should you should begin with the assertion that it's true. You should begin with the assertion that I choose to believe. I'm choosing to accept this proposition.

[00:19:58]Doesn't mean the proposition is true.

[00:20:00]>> It makes sense because he was evangelical >> and they they assume that their position is true.

[00:20:07]>> Yeah. It's a presuppositional. And again, that's a big problem. and and it actually colors as the conversation progresses, it actually colors the conversation pretty well >> um around the world.

[00:20:17]>> Um but all of them start with an equally valid place of being um undemonstrable.

[00:20:25]So you would need uh a falsifiable test that would set you apart to say something like um for example um when uh let's give the the Catholics as an example, right? is one of the reasons I have issues with Catholicism is they have specific prayers that are supposed to accomplish specific things, right?

[00:20:46]That's testable. That's that's falsifiable. And the tests come up false when you when you perform them. An answered prayer is no more likely than random chance. And so you can't ascribe it to a being. You can't describe it.

[00:20:59]You can't prescribe it as a will. there is no uh data point that helps you understand that there was more behind this than any other um uh any other claim.

[00:21:09]>> Well, I mean so G can you give me an example of a prayer that has a specific purpose that may or may not be falsifiable within >> Sure. Sure. So, so praying to for example um uh Catholics subsuming the the concept of polytheism under their the opaces of their um their pantheon for lack of a better term of saints right so you can pray instead of praying to Poseidon because you're you're you believe in the ancient Greek mythologies you pray to St. Andrew and he will intercede with you on God's behalf, right? Or intercede with God on your behalf to deliver u calm seas. So, I like that he actually makes that correlation that the that the the directing prayers to more than just a singular divine being is something that continued to be a a thought that found itself in Catholicism, but kind of was translated into it's kind of an interesting way of looking at it and it's and it's fairly critical and historical >> but a what now?

[00:22:08]>> That doesn't happen.

[00:22:09]>> Oh, calmies. Okay.

[00:22:10]>> Yeah. that at least such a prayer doesn't happen any more often than random chance, right? You can't describe it. You can't demonstrate that that is a a true claim. Um but there's all sorts of false evidence, right? So you could, you know, and then you're you have a a claim brought up that's something like um well that person's heart wasn't in the right place or it wasn't God's will to have calm seas that day which is indistinguishable from whether or not there was a god or and it was just random weather pattern versus a god that chose not to influence.

[00:22:43]>> Right. And and the fact that if there is a god that he would have certain characteristics and those would include his ability to act based on his own free will and choice.

[00:22:53]>> Yeah. does does make that a problem. So, >> exactly.

[00:22:57]>> So, that that you're delivered some way of petitioning that being to do something for you doesn't mean that he has to do it.

[00:23:05]Right.

[00:23:05]>> Right. In which case, you can't if if something positive does happen for you, you can't ascribe it to his his effort anymore than if he doesn't do it, you can ascribe it to his lack of inter intervention, >> right? And so that I I guess that would be so from a religious perspective, the way that I often look at it is by by sending up a petition to the almighty, assuming that he exists.

[00:23:36]And if he did exist, then I am requesting that he do something, that he interceded, that he, you know, grant some kind of request or or whatever.

[00:23:47]And if indeed he does do that, I will know that he did it. And if he doesn't do that, I will know that it was his will that that not occur.

[00:23:57]>> Right?

[00:23:58]>> So either way, I am confirmed in that request. But if I don't send up any petition to any kind of being, then yes, all I can attribute that to is random chance.

[00:24:12]Now I would ask you ask you guys and the audience what what do you think about that? That is that's an issue. I actually wrestled with that through my own struggle with the faith is that if you pray and it is just as effective. He is an atheist lout lou um it is it is just as testable to say well I threw up my petition to God and he heard me but didn't answer me in the way that I request requested. So I got an answer but it's not the answer I wanted or I got an answer that I that I wanted. The thing happened that I actually asked for. And so either way though you're like I am asking God and God is still enacting his will. So again the conclusion is always that there is a God. So you're already concluding the thing and that's that's what I always struggled and and honestly getting out of that is difficult. Any anybody have any thoughts or suggestions in the comments?

[00:25:19]I don't know if I'm necessarily following. So praying.

[00:25:22]>> So yeah. Yeah. So look, >> praying but God doesn't answer in the way you wanted.

[00:25:27]>> Yeah. Two scenarios. I pray. So scenario one is I'm a believer. Scenario two is I'm a non-believer. Non-believer never prays.

[00:25:36]>> Non-believer goes to the hospital.

[00:25:38]Grandma's sick. Grandma gets better because he wants grandma to get better.

[00:25:41]Better. Um, believer goes to the hospital, prays that grandma will get better. Grandma gets better. Believer just says, "Well, grandma just got better." Or non-believer, believer just says, "Well, God blessed her and she got better."

[00:25:55]But see, in the case of the atheist, when he doesn't petition God and grandma doesn't get better, she gets sick and she passes away. Well, again, that doesn't change his position. But the other problem is for the theist is it does because he will have to say, "Well, I petitioned that grandma would get better, but it wasn't God's will that she get better." So God >> took her and that's what God's will is.

[00:26:20]So I prayed that God's will would be done. So the only way it doesn't work is if you believe that God is a gumball machine that you put in a prayer and you get out a gumball and you get out the gumball that you want. Right? That's the only way it works. And so, but on the flip side, the atheist has but see, the atheist has the same issue. They've already concluded there's no God. So, they won't see God's hand in anything either. So, the and that's what I was trying to get at is it's like for me the distinction is choice. It becomes a decision that a person makes as to how they perceive the world, which has to be based on something outside of yourself or internal to yourself.

[00:27:00]And that's kind of where where I was trying to direct the argument. Yeah, that's where I'm going with this.

[00:27:04]>> So, yeah, that'd be hard.

[00:27:05]>> Yeah, it does. It becomes a problem because we all we all want everything to be like concrete. I can touch this and it's concrete and I can feel it. But there are just there are concessions we have to make. And my my counsel is don't be afraid to make those concessions.

[00:27:22]Don't don't be afraid to acknowledge that there's difficulties in an argument. Just because we're members of the church and we believe the church is true, that God's leading the church through revelation, through prophets, etc., that doesn't mean we don't have difficulties in in arguing or reasoning through our position.

[00:27:38]>> That windows down to what? Something similar to better safe than sorry.

[00:27:42]>> No, no, it's not a better safe than sorry. It's simply it's simply a using using religious epistemology and not trying to use some other kind of way of knowing.

[00:27:57]Okay.

[00:27:57]>> Religions religions all have their own claims that are not adequate.

[00:28:02]>> They're not objective claims. They're subjective claims.

[00:28:04]>> Exactly.

[00:28:06]And >> so let me go to the next one.

[00:28:12]So I guess the next next logical question that is even if you did have such a god with the characteristics of um the the omnipotence or or at least the sufficient power even if you don't ascribe. So I I earlier in the discussion and I clipped it out, but early in the discussion we talked about what kind of a God is. Um, and he actually loses track of those things. We have a discussion about the sufficiency of scripture in the next clip and what scripture is and how scriptur is delivered and how God works. And in the process of kind of having that back and forth, he doesn't really uh he doesn't really get outside of his Protestantism.

[00:28:50]Right.

[00:28:50]>> Right. It's that >> I could just tell he's atheist because of Protestant dogma right now >> just listening to him.

[00:28:58]>> And I think he's imposing on anything and it gets worse >> to have formed and and and inform >> why didn't you call that out creation?

[00:29:05]Um >> which one? Why didn't you call it call call it out or did you?

[00:29:09]>> I do. I do. I do later on. I'm again like like Ashton said, I'm playing the slow long game because I I I want to hear it out because it's easy to just kind of diagnose and treat quickly, but I'm trying to get him to listen to me.

[00:29:23]And the only way I can do that is by listening to him.

[00:29:25]>> How?

[00:29:26]>> Which again is a tool.

[00:29:27]>> How then do you make the step from that to he uh is worthy and or actually desires worship?

[00:29:33]>> Right. And that's again that's that's the that's the issue is you've got to kind of parcel out your your >> don't ever say parcel out that's [laughter] that's lethargy and tiredness. So if don't ever don't ever critic criticize me for fumbling my words because I do these discussions late at night usually >> analysis dep >> and actually this one it looks like the day is up but it's like 7 o'clock at night >> depending on what your understanding is of the divine being. So true.

[00:30:04]>> Um there's there's going to be as different. So for Latter Day Saints, we believe that truth is truth. Whatever that is, the reality of it is is that humans need to figure out what truth is or should be trying to figure out what truth is. And God has his reasons for shadowing or withholding full truth or disclosure from humans. And and the the question therein is why? What's the purpose for the lack of disclosure?

[00:30:33]And I I you can go to any faith tradition and ask that question and then ask yourself if they can answer that question within their within their umbrella of their theology. Can they they identify it?

[00:30:46]>> Probably not.

[00:30:47]>> Yeah. Most religions have some kind of most religions have some kind of creation or organization type narrative.

[00:30:57]So I know like Norse mythology has a pretty complex creation account.

[00:31:03]>> Oh, incredibly incredibly so. And so, you know, as >> their end of the world is just as equally complex and well thought out >> and and Hinduism and I mean listening to the if you go through and you like read the the Norse mythology and I don't remember what all the complexities of it are, but I just remember when I was reading it, it was it was so multifaceted that it was difficult to even follow.

[00:31:26]>> Actually ran a Dungeons and Dragons game based on that. Uh it was a good time. I did an incredible amount of research for it. It was a lot of fun.

[00:31:33]>> Yeah. So, we we um I just got myself confused. I don't know that that's inappropriate. I think if Jupiter is a real being, a divine being, let's say, I I I don't know that I would want to have anything to do with Jupiter. And in fact, people that believe >> Yeah. So, to not believe it. So we started talking about some issues and um regarding the [sighs] um the nature of different kinds of gods which that's that's a that's one thing that I don't think I did as well in this discussion is we didn't parse out the distinctions between the claims of the religions. So that's that's always something that you have to look at. So for example, Protestant theology for me is wrong because it makes an objective claim that is objectively false. And the objectively false claim that it makes. And you're like just one?

[00:32:33]That's what you're thinking. I know that's what you're thinking. You're like only one. [laughter] Like it only makes one claim that's objectively false. So [laughter] well Martin Luther was a good guy.

[00:32:46]That's objective false.

[00:32:49]>> [laughter] >> But but it makes it makes objectively false claims. And so one of the claims it makes is that the Bible is a closed cannon, which you can believe. You can just believe that. But what they claim is that the Bible teaches that, which it can't. It just does not teach that. It cannot teach that objectively.

[00:33:10]So you can know if one of the foundational principles of Protestantism is a closed solos scriptor type canon that's objectively false which means you can't so based on its own internal criteria it's making a claim that's falsifiable and false but he kind of loses that and goes after feelings and so the whole kind of conversation actually devolves into a lot of feelings >> and I think that that's that's a common claim that's made particularly in the Christian tradition that that the triune God is worthy of worship because of >> Oh, exactly.

[00:33:43]>> He's so big and he's so great. He's so wonderful.

[00:33:47]>> Read the Old Testament.

[00:33:48]>> Yeah.

[00:33:49]>> And you will be completely disavowed of that.

[00:33:51]>> Yeah. Well, I mean, Old Testament is pretty complicated. So, >> now this guy knew the Old Testament quite well. At least that's what he presented. Now, I want I want to I know I guys, I know that this guy's a little bit dull and I'm I'm trying to make this as exciting as possible. it really is important that you pay attention because he actually raises some really important issues. But it's got it's got a lot of layers as to why why things appear the way they do. And in there >> I mean it's there there's some really simple things in there that that you know so for example the the the traditional training god of the of mainstream Christianity right is a omnipotent omniscient um benevolent right and those three things are mutually exclusive in the Old Testament.

[00:34:36]There's there's [snorts] uh evidence against all three of them um simply in the Old Testament with within single verses.

[00:34:43]>> It's true.

[00:34:44]>> What would be what would be an example of of if you can think of one? I know I'm kind of putting you on.

[00:34:49]>> Now, this actually sounds like I'm taking a Protestant position, which to some degree I am. And this is this is a this is a critique I have. I don't think I made this clear enough. What's an example of of God being well, for example, is he manifesting malevolence in the Old Testament?

[00:35:06]>> Oh, sure. So, um a really solid example is uh his overriding human will um as is the case in the [snorts] story of the um the 10 plagues of Egypt in in Exodus, right? Where at the end um Pharaoh was ready to let them go after plague nine.

[00:35:26]And God, and it says straight up in the in the Hebrew, you know, God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh didn't harden Pharaoh's heart. God overrode his free will and twisted his [snorts] um his intent and overrode his decision so that he could show off.

[00:35:45]>> Right. And that's and that's that's a I mean that would be a perspective that would be specific to one one particular view of those texts. How can how can you interpret that any different?

[00:35:57]>> Because it it doesn't interpret that way because it's it's it's the idea that God doesn't grant to his creatures free will.

[00:36:04]>> And I think I made a I think that that was sloppy that I said that that way. It just doesn't interpret that way. That's kind of dismissive of his argument.

[00:36:12]>> So you don't you don't believe in free will?

[00:36:14]>> No. No. I I believe I Well, Latter-day Saints I I in in are the only ones who believe in free will. Now that's me being a little bit incendiary that we're the only ones who actually accept free will, but I do actually believe that other faith tradition really accepts free will.

[00:36:29]>> Right. So So how do you square that?

[00:36:31]Right. So how do you square the story of Pharaoh's heart being overridden by God?

[00:36:35]>> Well, I mean it depends on the on the text itself. So early >> God Pharaoh's heart.

[00:36:41]>> Well, I I know and that's that's an English understanding of that and that's >> I can quote it to you in in Hebrew if you want. It's the same words.

[00:36:49]>> Okay. So he hardened Pharaoh's heart.

[00:36:50]How did he do that?

[00:36:55]>> It's the same phrase that was used earlier. It's a >> He ignored my question. I was challenging his command of Hebrew by asking him, "Well, then how did he harden his heart?" And it just he doesn't actually know. He just knows the phrase >> the same phrase that was used earlier in the Hebrew where I said Pharaoh hardened his heart and didn't set the slaves free.

[00:37:14]>> So Pharaoh hardened his own heart and didn't set the slaves free >> for the first nine.

[00:37:18]>> Right? And then for the 10th play, God did it for him.

[00:37:21]>> God hardened his heart.

[00:37:24]>> Okay.

[00:37:25]>> So, how is that not overriding Pharaoh's free will?

[00:37:28]>> Well, you're assuming first of all that that's accurate in the text.

[00:37:33]>> What do you mean I'm assuming that?

[00:37:35]>> Now, this is where he gets a problematic and again bad argument on my po on my part. This is not a good argument.

[00:37:40]>> It's accurate.

[00:37:41]>> Well, so so that the So, let's say >> you think it's a typo, >> right?

[00:37:46]>> Yeah.

[00:37:46]>> Don't ever suggest from Paul >> God instead of Pharaoh.

[00:37:52]>> Yeah. Why couldn't it be a typo?

[00:37:53]>> I've recommended people read.

[00:37:54]>> Well, then by that logic, why couldn't every single thing in every holy book be a typo?

[00:37:58]>> No, seriously.

[00:37:58]>> That's right. That's a good That's a good point.

[00:38:00]>> So, how how then you then holy books are utterly worthless to you?

[00:38:03]>> Why would they be?

[00:38:04]>> Again, this is the problem. This is what I wanted to look at. We started analyzing scripture and it's like, so I I I picked the Pharaoh problem when he said that that God hardened Pharaoh's heart in Exodus. The the problem with that is is that there is a whole bunch of debate about that verse and of course I didn't have the research for it available to me at the time. So what I did is I chose to go about it a different way. What would you have done Chuck >> with him?

[00:38:35]>> Yeah. So you've got this situation where he says for the nine plagues har Pharaoh is hardening his own heart and then for the tenth plague >> it says God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

[00:38:47]>> I think it just falls under interpretation. Right.

[00:38:51]>> Yep.

[00:38:52]>> Prophetic voice to interpret that in the light of Latter- Day Saint theology.

[00:38:58]>> Right. So that's what I would do too.

[00:38:59]But so he's looking at the text but again the mistake he's making is well the text is mistaking. And then of course when I say well that could just be an error in the text which there is some argument that it is. And if you say well that's a mistake in the text well now now you have to throw out the scriptures. So that's where he kind of goes >> because you can't trust any word of them.

[00:39:18]>> Why not?

[00:39:19]>> So here you have an atheist making the same argument that evangelicals make to us about whenever we reject infallibility.

[00:39:28]>> Right?

[00:39:28]>> Because they could all be a typo. Okay.

[00:39:30]Well, I mean to to believe otherwise is to ascribe to them inherency.

[00:39:35]>> Okay. So, okay. So, that's fine. So, you don't ascribe inherency. Perfectly fine.

[00:39:40]How do you know what's an error and what's not?

[00:39:43]>> I use I use reason and common sense and >> what reason? What reason? But like, give me an example.

[00:39:51]>> Well, I mean, so if something doesn't square with the the attributes >> now, did you guys notice he's getting bothered by this? That's the the reasoning is bothering him.

[00:40:01]>> Reject that.

[00:40:02]>> He's getting more hostile.

[00:40:03]>> So, you're [snorts] okay.

[00:40:05]>> He doesn't like that. I'm rejecting infallibility.

[00:40:08]>> Well, I mean it it contains useful information, >> but it doesn't because every single person could square every single point differently.

[00:40:15]>> But that doesn't that doesn't mean it's useful useless, right?

[00:40:18]>> So, here's his issue.

[00:40:20]>> Here's his issue. If it's not infallible, you can't know it's true >> or you can't know it's correct or you can't utilize it. But it is but it does have but it does have problems with it.

[00:40:29]Like he acknowledges it has flaws. I agree it has flaws.

[00:40:34]>> But his conclusion is flaws make it where I'm an atheist, >> right?

[00:40:39]>> Rather than human beings are involved in the production of the text and we don't know who wrote these texts and there's a whole blah blah blah. God didn't write them. But he's he's actually reached this is where atheists tend to kind of feel cornered. And so guys, you have to be careful. This this conversation actually went kind of downhill.

[00:41:01]>> That's right.

[00:41:03]>> Especially when I started reconcile that.

[00:41:05]>> You can't. It would be my right. That would be an internal inconsistency in the epistemology at that point. Right.

[00:41:12]You if you base your faith on a holy book, but you believe that the holy book isn't inherent. Right.

[00:41:17]>> Yes, I don't.

[00:41:18]>> Okay. Okay. So, that's >> latter day saints. Latter Day Saints don't believe in the inherency of scripture and we don't base our faith on holy books. We have scripture and we find that they are useful and they can be useful information. But >> okay, but how can you how can you even say that there it's useful information if you know there's errors in it >> or if you can assume there's >> that's like saying no book that has any error in it is useful.

[00:41:42]>> I don't I don't understand this argument. Everybody makes this argument.

[00:41:46]Atheists make this argument. Protestants make this argument. If the book is has one mistake in it, we throw it in the garbage. It's just I don't understand that like the first the first I mean >> oh this story is is contradictory with this story therefore the story is just ultimately not true and false >> or people's understanding of the story is different which makes them contradictory in nature.

[00:42:10]Yeah, that's like saying I mean >> like it's just I Yeah, it's just >> argument. Don't tell me fables are parables because they're mistaken.

[00:42:19]They're not historically accurate. So don't tell them to me. They're meaningless. They're useless. You can't use them for it's just it's really bad.

[00:42:25]And I don't know where they go that way.

[00:42:27]This is a relatively intelligent person.

[00:42:29]Yet he has an error in it.

[00:42:33]>> If I have an eighth grade science book that contains an error in it, the whole book is useless. it it calls into question everything in the book, >> right? And and it should >> it in which case you need to go back to my original premise at the beginning of the call where you need to be able to falsify something >> because you need to be able to independently test a claim.

[00:42:52]>> Why?

[00:42:53]>> Because how else are you going to know whether it's true or not?

[00:42:56]>> You won't.

[00:42:57]>> Okay. So, if you don't know anything is true, how do you >> Again, it's that his his falsifiability has to do with science. That's a scientific epistemology. Science falsifies things. And it's like if it's not falsifiable, you can't know if it's true. Yeah. Right. Right. So, and again, the analogy I always use is like this is a cup.

[00:43:18]Cup, right? Cup. I can test it. I can I can you can falsify that it's not a cup or whatever. You can prove it's not a cup, but we're talking about God. But if you wrote a book and you said that this cup holds water and it's blue, but in reality it's red, doesn't necessarily mean every other uh word on the page describing the cup and what it can do is false.

[00:43:45]>> Right. Right. It doesn't mean it's not a cup.

[00:43:48]>> It doesn't mean it's not describing or that there was no cup. Right.

[00:43:50]>> Right. So, it can still be useful to understanding what a cup does even though it got that thing wrong.

[00:43:56]>> Right.

[00:43:57]>> You move forward in faith.

[00:43:59]>> You're going to have to make choices.

[00:44:02]That's making it up as you go. That's that's saying I like this, so I'm going to believe this. I like this. I'm going to believe this. And I'm just going to move.

[00:44:10]Sorry, I run.

[00:44:16]A sound epistemology is uh a way is a way for a human being to advance, right? is in order to be able to successfully make higher level decisions, decisions that aren't based simply on um sensory stimulus, uh you need to be able to rely on uh a framework, right? And so for uh to have the most reliable, the highest confidence in your framework, um it needs to be able to it needs to have predictive power, right? needs to be >> notice notice he's speaking in terms this is where I I was trying to this is where I'm trying to get him I want him to explain what he presents as the proper way of knowing the proper epistemological standard. That's what I was trying to get him to do because he kept saying that everything I believe is squishy and and subjective and I I just concede that it is. It's squishy and subjective. But then he's like, well, you have to have this framework and you have to like because he doesn't realize your standard is God is a subjective experience unless you can objectively prove he exists, which we can't.

[00:45:26]>> Well, and then he starts to imply a moral framework, an epistemological framework, >> conclusions that as you iterate over experiencing them, they produce positive results.

[00:45:39]>> Why?

[00:45:39]>> See, again, you see how much subjectivity there is. And this is why I said why. Why do we have to do that?

[00:45:45]>> Otherwise, you you forgo higher thought and you're reduced to simply um sensory stimulus, right? This is how >> this is how religions that have like um deep chanting and meditation and things like that that rely simply on stimulus um or that you know who embibe drugs or who who play with poisons. um they rely on sensory stimulus to override a logical um uh investigation of the claims that they make.

[00:46:15]>> Well, you're you're I guess you're assume what religion doesn't rely on any kind of higher level thinking or logic and override >> to to give an to give an example, right?

[00:46:26]The the let's do the um let's do the Jewish faith this time, right? So, strictly with the the Torah and the Old Testament, right? their and their um extent scriptures, their their verbal traditions. Um that stuff's in internally inconsistent with the attributes that they ascribe to Yahweh.

[00:46:45]And so since those claims are in internally inconsistent, they don't have a logical foundation for for the claims that they're making. They're reduced to relying on sensory stimulus. I I I prayed and it made me feel good. I followed the rule.

[00:47:02]>> You understand that? That's that's a big problem. And I really want to point this out because this is a real big issue because look at it this way. I have an ancient document. That ancient document reflects God's will to that people at that time.

[00:47:16]That's kind of my position. But then by reading that text, I connect emotionally, spiritually, um, intellectually with with the being that's reflected there. But then I draw away from it positive results, positive conclusions.

[00:47:34]Well, that that gap, that disconnect that he's identifying between the text telling you that you have to do these things that he thinks are bad things or are bad in their circumstances, but then the positive result that it yields from the person where the person actually as a consequence of reading the text, engaging with it, reaches a positive result. That's the disconnect that he doesn't I I don't think he understands that. That's where the subjectivity that exists in religion that people point to as their reason for believing. It's like, yeah, you can complain about these texts and you can complain about this system, but it yields these results in my life that I feel are positive. But again, even the conclusion that they're positive is totally just his your your belief and perspective because it gets a little bit more heated.

[00:48:23]>> How do you demonstrate its value?

[00:48:26]Well, >> how how does it improve the human? How does it improve a human being's life?

[00:48:31]>> Religions teach principles that are contrary to what is human nature.

[00:48:36]>> Like what?

[00:48:37]>> We we've built entire civilizations around those principles. And you can believe that they're they're not religious or not. You could believe, for example, Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian ethics.

[00:48:49]That's pretty foundational to our society. And we're also the most developed and the most successful societies. Yeah, but I would argue in spite of that because we've gotten rid of beliefs. A fantastic example is >> that's just a decision which is >> that's just a decision he's making and he gets into slavery >> specifically allowed and permitted in uh in the Bible, right? So there is your Judeo-Christian belief.

[00:49:11]>> No, slavery 100% is >> right. Slavery in the Bible is very different than than what we understand it today. So, so the so the laws in in slavery in the Bible that allow you to beat someone as long as you don't kill them >> are what?

[00:49:26]>> Which law are you talking about >> again? He's actually Exodus 21.

[00:49:31]>> I can look up the exact verse for you if you're curious. Um, I don't recall the reference right off the top of my head, but there is a description, a very clear description in the original Hebrew, so you can even go back to the original language that says that if you discipline a slave, as long as you don't kill him and he can walk up in a he can get up and walk around in a couple of days, you haven't done a bad thing.

[00:49:55]>> Right? So regardless of how you view, >> now this is where I lost it because I thought we had already determined that I don't believe the texts are inherent and infallible. So I actually make a big mistake because I don't realize we're talking past each other. He has actually gone back to inherency, infallibility standard with the scriptures and that God wrote the texts. He he literally I lose him in this point.

[00:50:22]uh slavery [snorts] and whether you equate it to what we think of as modern slavery, whether you can equate it to indentured servitude or whether you equate it to modern employment. None of those institutions in none of those institutions is it a good thing? Is it an objectively good thing to go beat someone as long as they can get up and walk away from after a day?

[00:50:43]>> It's comparative. It would depend on the society in which you live.

[00:50:48]>> Why why should it change? Again, see what he's arguing? He's literally arguing that every society should have the same standards of crime and punishment.

[00:50:58]>> Yeah, >> I do.

[00:50:59]>> But that would fundamentally go against his standard as an atheist.

[00:51:03]>> Yeah.

[00:51:04]>> That would mean that there is a moral standard.

[00:51:07]>> Yeah.

[00:51:08]>> Outside of outside of humanity.

[00:51:11]>> Yeah. Like we all have it. Everybody.

[00:51:13]And then he tries to he again it I hate the moral argument. I I don't like it. A lot of people love the moral argument, but I I personally struggle with the idea of an objective morality because for me, God reveals to people according to their their understanding and their time, etc. And that looks very subjective, right? Because God's laws and rules for a people at a time are different than his rules later for a different people at a different time.

[00:51:43]And so I don't believe that there's some like whatever the guiding principle I believe that that rules everything is this is my work in my glory to bring to pass the immortality eternal life of man. That's what I think is the objective standard >> because because people evolve.

[00:52:01]>> Okay. Good for people evolving. If if a that was incredibly dismissive >> all knowing God or a know lots [laughter] of knowing God even if he's not all knowing >> sets down a law good for people as is good for explained in the Torah right to the Jewish people.

[00:52:16]>> Why can and the and he already talks about holding them as a separate people where they have a higher standard of life right where they stand in his example to the world. Why not leave that out?

[00:52:28]>> That's that's a very good question. Why not? Because again, now he's going to say, "Well, if I could figure that out, why couldn't these ancient people >> that caused untold?"

[00:52:41]>> But tell me, tell me.

[00:52:42]>> What were we saying, Chuck?

[00:52:44]>> No, I was just saying. Yeah, right.

[00:52:46]Correct.

[00:52:47]>> Yeah. It's just it's >> Wait, what was the cultural context >> surrounding Israel when that law was given that you could punish a servant but not kill them?

[00:52:58]is a bloodthirsty tribes conquering each other, >> right?

[00:53:02]>> So why not hold them to a higher standard? Because again, if you're >> weren't allowed to kill you weren't allowed to kill your servants. That was the higher standard.

[00:53:10]>> That's not that's not the higher standard though because there are still contexts where you can kill the people.

[00:53:14]There are contexts where you can >> Yeah, there's always going to be you can stone to death the victim of a rape under the right circumstances in the Old Testament.

[00:53:23]>> Okay. In what circumstances were those?

[00:53:26]If she gets raped in the town, right, and he's got a knife, >> it's it's the Deuteronomy 21. It's always the Deuteronomy 21. In fact, I'm going to stop share real quick. The This one's always brought up. And I don't know why it's it's almost with a degree of brain rot that it's brought up, but he actually goes into it for a long time. We we went back and forth on this and it was it was actually difficult to um it's just like you've heard this argument, right?

[00:53:59]>> Yeah. Deuteronomy 21 or 22.

[00:54:03]>> Yeah, the it's 22. You're right.

[00:54:07]He said 21. Yeah, it's Yeah, it's it's common. It's common um fodder for atheists. They bring this up all the time. Um >> 22 28 and through 30.

[00:54:22]>> Yeah. And they they bring this up all the time. Um and it's this it's laws concerning sexual relations is how it's how it's framed here. But it says suppose but again it's identifying the reason it's it's sectioned here. It's identifying different kinds of relationships where the woman has a different relationship. And again, this is only a problem if God wrote the text.

[00:54:46]But if human beings are working through how to resolve issues, revelation is not simply just God dictating it. That's the problem. And as a as a former Protestant, Ben is having this problem with God dictated these texts and this is not the highest best standard that he can consider in his brain. But they have these ideas. And then the other the other idea and again I failed to do this during the discussion. It's something I should have been a little bit more vigilant about. I neglected to actually identify that in the ancient world they weren't individualists the way that we are today because he talks a lot about the woman's value and what she wants to do and her freedom and things like that in that in that segment that that we had. And as he's doing that, he's identifying he's like, "Well, here's this and here's that, and I didn't do a good enough job actually saying,"Look, here's the problem. You are applying a totally present idea." So, it's really important that as you guys start to interact with people, whether they're they're atheists or agnostic or or or Protestants or whatever, you need to make sure that you recognize that they are often engaged in presentism. Um, atheists do it one way and Protestants and and Catholics and stuff do it the other way where they think that the biblical texts were written at a time that they're applicable today, but then they inconsistently do that whenever you talk about the Old Testament.

[00:56:16]>> So, it it applies for all time except when it doesn't. And then they're they're in a bind that way. But atheists are just saying this is God's word. He should have given the best, highest, most perfect, you know, omnipresent intergalactic law that would have been perfect for all time in all places to these ancient people. I mean, according to the text, nearly 4,000 years ago, and he should have given them this perfect law and and he didn't. And so, why didn't he do that? But the text says, suppose a man marries a woman, but after going to her dislikes her and again makes up charges and slandering her. I married this woman when I lay with her.

[00:56:51]So this is a man who is married and then and then states but she's not a virgin.

[00:56:56]Why would he do that? So that's the underlying context that Ben is not analyzing because he says well it's in the Bible. The context here is not being analyzed where it's a man who's upset with his wife. He's trying to get out of the marriage. Uh divorce is is only permitted under extreme circumstances and he's trying to apply one of the circumstances to her dishonestly. And so what do they do? They have a law code and as an attorney myself, a law code is something that's very significant and important in a society. They have to structure their society around laws. And so each one of these is taking a woman who has been married, betrothed, and not betrothed, which means she's still the the her her rights, the rights of her womb still belong to the father in the sense that he has not given them to another man with permission in exchange for a dowy or whatever because children had value. And again, in our in our modern ears, these things actually have it's hard to hear that a woman had value.

[00:57:57]>> Go to 28 and 29. Here's one thing that I think Christians struggle with as well from atheists.

[00:58:04]>> Yeah.

[00:58:05]>> If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the young woman's father and she shall become his wife because he has violated her. He shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. And a man shall not marry his father's wife, therefore therefore thereby violating his father's rights.

[00:58:29]>> Right.

[00:58:30]>> I like that that word rights. Yeah.

[00:58:32]>> Yeah. Well, it's just it's if you take inherency here, God commanded in perfect unity that you can uh seize, right? Seizes are implies, right? taking advantage of her and then just pay the the father 50 shekels and now she's your wife forever.

[00:59:00]>> Yeah. They always try to do that. Well, well, yeah. Except that's not what's happened because even the woman in that situation would be again, not that she'd be grateful, but she'd be taken care of long term. that man under the law would be required to regard her and take care of her. And so it it doesn't take a consideration into effect as to whether or not the the the relationship is necessarily something that she's going to be happy with. For example, do does she love the man? But the man is is being required to engage in a responsibility relationship born out of his actions.

[00:59:41]It's not a punishment for people. It's a responsibility. It's a you did this thing, you're now responsible for the consequences of it.

[00:59:49]>> Do you think the woman would be grateful for that though >> because she got taken advantage of and then now she has to be with that person forever.

[00:59:57]>> The again, the law doesn't care about your feelings. And that's where Ben goes wrong. These are law codes. These aren't feelings codes. These aren't how do you feel about things. These are practical codes for the purposes of caring for the society in in in extreme circumstances that it's trying to account for and then regulate according to some legal system. So, do you think God infallibly do you think God would have infallibly revealed those codes at this time or do you think there's some >> humanity error of prophets trying to institute codes to help >> guide people to God?

[01:00:36]>> Again, yeah, that's actually an excellent question. So, I think personally this is what this is what and and I think it bears out in the restoration. I think that what's happening here is we can just stop share for a minute. I think what's happening here is the the Latter- Day Saints believe that revelation is multifaceted and comes from different sources. There's different sources of revelation. There's your social and cultural context.

[01:01:02]There's education and knowledge. There's advice and counsel from the wise.

[01:01:07]There's God's actually speaking to you.

[01:01:09]But it is more likely that when a need arises, God will require a prophet and anybody who leads the people to engage in an effort to try to resolve and fix the problem, to address the issue, and to learn thereby. God doesn't sit down and say, "Okay, Moses, you know nothing about anything. I'm going to tell you everything." The the Israelites have an understanding of the law codes that exist in the context in which they find themselves. they are already going to utilize their understanding of what's acceptable in the cultural context in which they find themselves. And God is not going to be like, "Well, that's barbaric." He it's just why would he?

[01:01:50]Because that's what's the normative behavior in that context. Now, he does have them do things and and and Ben brings this up in the discussion. Again, I don't want to belver the live and bore people to death with his with his um you look like you're about to fall asleep listening to him, too. I do want to listen to >> He is very slow and I do have to get after this thought, by the way. But >> no, it's fine.

[01:02:13]>> Um finish finish the thought because I am I am curious because when I did the when I did a live reaction to Cliff, the Muslims presented this issue to them.

[01:02:25]>> Yeah. And so yeah, it is it's so cliff and then we're like we're just grateful we don't live at this time.

[01:02:30]>> Yeah. Which is not appropriate. But again, that's because they think God wrote the Bible. That's only a problem.

[01:02:36]>> So now I'm trying to now say how does a Latter-day Saint view this context because we don't believe it's infallible. But we do believe that prophets are inspired. And so maybe prophets are instituting laws and codes associated to the what they think is correct for their people to follow in these instances. Well, so for example, I'm inspired to help the missionaries.

[01:02:58]I'm inspired sometimes about specific things to say when I'm teaching with the missionaries, >> but not everything I say is inspired, >> right? [laughter] >> God could could >> God doesn't have as there's not a hand up my rear p puppeting me to as to what to say. I'm still me, [laughter] >> right?

[01:03:17]>> And I'm I can be a real jerk sometimes.

[01:03:20]So I in fact before we got on this I was on a Tik Tok with with Chase >> with Alios and I I went I went off on this guy because he was being completely a jerk.

[01:03:32]Yeah, I and I'm not saying everything I say was inspired by God or that God's like giving a thumbs up to my behavior, but still I was inspired to help, >> right, >> to join and some of the things I did, for example, the testifying, what little I did was inspired, but not all of it.

[01:03:51]And that's his problem. It's an all or nothing kind of a deal, >> right? And so and yeah, so like as a latter- day saint, we can view this and say prophets instituted laws and codes >> for their society at their time that would best associate, not necessarily best, but that would help associate a greater society.

[01:04:11]>> And those codes and laws don't have to be infallible statements from God. And they can continue to grow light upon light, knowledge upon knowledge to receive greater light and knowledge from God to institute better laws. basically.

[01:04:24]>> Well, and ult ultimately what they're proposing if you take it to its logical conclusion is like why didn't the ancient Israelites have cell phones and cars?

[01:04:33]>> Because why wouldn't God I mean if he's going to give them the highest and best why didn't they discover how to build computers, right? Why I mean he could have revealed that to them but he didn't. Why did he leave them in the darkness with no electric lights, >> right? Where does it end? Right? And so it's like, well, if he can give him if he can give him behavior codes, well, certainly he can also give them medicine and surgical practices that are consistent with modern medicine.

[01:04:58]>> Well, he can give them anything, right?

[01:05:00]And everything. Why didn't he?

[01:05:02]>> Well, yeah. I would just say that's that would be my answer to Deuteronomy 22. Is it Does this necessarily come directly from God as an infallible statement? No.

[01:05:12]>> Are prophets inspired to guide people to to God? And they institute their own laws and codes that they think are inspired by God? Yes. And are those codes and laws changeable predicated upon further light knowledge? Yes.

[01:05:26]>> And does God accept their offering?

[01:05:28]That's the thing is whatever we do is an offering to God. And and kind of in conclusion, and we don't need to go back and and watch any more of the discussion, but Ben and I kind of have this nice back and forth and we actually reach an accord on that because he does concede that. And I'll I'll post this discussion more in length um on the on this channel because I've introduced it.

[01:05:51]So we'll we'll do it we'll do a full people can watch it at their own leisure. It is he it's it's not dry.

[01:05:57]It's actually a really good discussion.

[01:05:58]It's just I'm being >> dry at the beginning.

[01:06:01]>> I'm being calm and he has a very calm demeanor. We do have a pretty um he heated discussion about some of these passages and then I actually talked to the missionaries a little bit afterwards and kind of went through some of the stuff. But the point being is that it's really important to understand that as we engage with people not of our faith especially that we recognize that we have to be careful. We have to be conscientious. We have to make sure we understand. Um otherwise you'll end up putting your foot in your mouth. And again, it's never wrong to disagree with a position that sounds at the out. So if you're if you're hesitant, somebody asks you a question like um well, do you believe the the scriptures have mistakes in them? And and it caused you to go, well, the answer could be yes. And you might need to go with that. Do you believe prophets make mistakes? Yes. We have all kinds of beliefs that are not consistent with what other Christians believe. and that if you say those things, they're actually going to get up in arms about it. But remember, we don't need to be bothered by those things because our our belief system is predicated on ongoing continuous public revelation and that God lives and he still speaks. And that's my two cents on that. So, anyways, hey Chuck, I know you need to go, so we can go ahead and cut it off here.

[01:07:17]>> Yeah, I'm if you want to continue, you can, but I gotta get going. But yeah, I think we have a way better answer than Protestants on that. So, >> yeah, I think so, too. Anyways, y'all, thanks for all of you guys. Appreciate it. Thanks a lot everybody. Have a good night.