This debate highlights the irreconcilable tension between historical orthodoxy and modern restorationism, proving that religious identity is often a battle over semantic gatekeeping rather than shared faith. It is a sharp intellectual exercise in how two groups can use the same scripture to construct entirely different realities.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Debate: Are Latter-Day Saints REALLY Christians?
Added:OK. OK.
OK. Kind regards please, ladies and gentlemen Gentlemen, straight ahead.
Ward Radio broadcasts. I your host Carden Ellis, and today to me via Zoom impressive joined cast. IN we are none other than Daniel from Free Fidian and Devin from Latterday Logic, who today they will honor us with yours presence, as well as, um, debating. We have enough today interesting topic for debates. As you saw on the thumbnail, we we will discuss, um, about ours Mormon Christians, our Christians- Latter-day Saints.
And, um, Devin is here.
even prepared, um, a small introduction word, script moderator, which I am I will read to you now.
Today's decision —this is a question that already being discussed almost two centuries.
Do they occupy Christians of the saints last days affirmative position, claiming that the saints last days there really is Christians? This will be none other than Devon from Latterday Logic. Also negative position Daniel is taking, um, also known as Free Fidian. Okay, so I quickly you I will introduce. Dan, uh, Devon, sorry, is leading.
Latterday Logic, platform, dedicated to logical approach that illustrates rational consistency theology of saints last days. He deals with issues Holy Scripture, authority and the nature of God. Uh, he is also a face Just hair cream Waves, which can be found in the ethnic department Walmart. And he is proud.
a member of the Chair Force team, which was not, uh, no was included in his biographies here. He works as a model for legs and ankle joint and musician- freelancer who records music, and he here tonight, to prove that the saints last days belong to Christian traditions. Good. AND now we present Daniel. Daniel, uh, he is the host of Free Fidian.
Good. It anarchist separatist movement from the state of Florida. No, we're just kidding. I I mean, we we just love freedom, you understand?
He just like, that is, there, you all are in California, I don't know, What are you doing there, but in Florida we love freedom.
Yes, we just preparing Gavin Newsom for office the president, you know.
No, I'm kidding. I don't want to to start a war. IN in any case, in I have...Excuse me. IN he has a channel in social networks called The Free Fidian from over 12 million views. This is enough.
impressive. Where is he?
talks about all that what not to say to talk about politics and religion.
He was also a guest many national programs, such as Liberty Sentinel and Dennis Prager Show.
But most importantly, he a Christian who believes that God put it here in America is exactly like this time for him to stood for truth and sought to preserve amazing blessings, given us in this country, about who we are at Ward Radio We say: "Amen, "manly." Therefore, the format will be enough simple. First every speaker will have an 18-minute introductory segment. Uh, Devin, you will first. Good. For, it seems like this debate rules Lincoln Douglas, who the one who claims goes first if I don't I'm wrong. And secondly, uh, they'll get, uh- oh, sorry, there will be more one introductory word, eh- uh, from Daniel. Then every speaker will receive a 10-minute refutation. And then we'll get to the point p.m. Two rounds cross-examination.
This is where it begins.
real pleasure. It turns out to get through, uh- uh, sentimental things to get to the most interesting– cross-examination.
In the first round, Deon will have 12 minutes to to put straight question to Daniel. IN second round Daniel will be 12 minutes for the same. Uh, and if you want put any questions to participants debates, please do it through superchat. And we let's try to get as much as possible superchats, if all It's going well, we're all here.
friends, and everything is fine. THERE ARE- uh, these are official debates, but they are so informal, as much as possible.
Also, Daniel and Devin, if I I'm wrong as moderator, no just be shy say "remark" regarding the agenda", "uh, and, and, and", and to express one's opinion complaint, I will do everything possible to occupy time. Uh, sorry, that keep to time. THERE ARE -uh, fourthly, we let the audience question. AND finally, we will have five-minute final word.
A short note regarding the rules. You can you finish segment earlier if you want. Uh, but completion not earlier adds time to speaker's clock. AND above all, this conversation occurs between people who are serious relate to these questions and seriously relate to each other one. Uh, come on.
Let's model this kind of disagreements, which becomes rare, honest, strict and respectful. Also I'll say that, um, I was generally impressed Daniel, because we familiar with him in general seven minutes before, hmm, episode, and I I repeat the general Devon's assessment when I asked who this man was, and he said that he actually quite pleasant, quite nice, so, hmm, I try not to to start a revolution, although it happened in 1776 year, I didn't start it, rock and roll, so, um, in any case maybe, hmm, probably, let's just Let's begin. Do you have, um, you will have 18 minutes, as soon as I say.
Devin, you Excited, brother?
IN You are mine, hmm, mine.
slides.
Oh, you posted them on Discord?
Yes.
Oh, okay. Steeply. Um, then I'm going pull them out as much as possible rather. If you want, I I will wait until will I publish the slides, or Do you just want to go?
before this?
Is this a Google Doc? AT, Here he is. I have it.
This is a Google slide.
I have received them now.
Dude, you're all Googled. Just like walking conversational google ads bro.
You know, Google and something like that like a cream for hair, and cameras, and cameras. OK, steeply. Yes, that's right.
here, brother. Is there Mormons Christians with a very elegant dark blue?
Uh, you're betraying yours, uh, military history in the Air Force and chooses dark blue.
So, let's begin. Devine, Your word, brother.
Perfectly. You can start.
from the cover. Oh, and before you start, Sorry, I don't want to.
freeze kicker.
Like a stream before you you jump at people like stream Okay, now.
you can start, Devine.
Question of the day in the evening: are there any saints?
last days Christians? I know, that sounds like one thing question, but actually it's four question. Let's move on to slide two. Uh, me I think my opponent maybe by chance to slip between them, without noticing this.
First question descriptive. Or saints are worshipped the last days of Jesus To Christ as ours divine To the Lord, the Son of God and the Savior? Second– historical. Did it arise?
this religion from Christianity and claims his succession? Third –confessional. Or accepts this movement Nian orthodoxy?
And finally, is it savior? Or indeed its members, church members, saved by grace Jesus Christ? I would claimed that yes, but, uh, I don't think so one of us has powers confirm this fourth point. And I I think he admits.
you, what, uh, even the best Christian, you know, he'll say that this is a question between this man and God. So every time my opponent today in the evening he says that Latter-day Saints are not Christians, I I ask him in which sense? Because if he doesn't can divide them, his argument will work through something called ambiguity, not evidence. Now I I immediately admit that if your definition —this is the third option, do we agree Nika's beliefs, Athanasius, apostolic belief? Well, no. AND, Thank God I didn't.
I am going to claim that we are.
But this concession is only confirms that we are not are believers Christians. If I I told you I was friends.
with Joe Biden, and that he is 40 years old Harvard graduate with Ohio, and has a sharp mind, you could to think about what I have to do mean something completely different Joe Biden than that, Who are you thinking about?
My position is because early church symbols faith teaches another gospel, false gospels. Ultimately, this led to numerous doctrinal errors in Protestantism, which openly contradict Bibles. These traditions represent another version of Christ than the one what we see in the Bible.
When I look at version of Jesus from symbols of faith, I see, that she is bigger reminds Neoplatonic Greek philosophy, than the Bible. And that's why I I can't accept this.
with a clear conscience as Christian. So, I don't I'm just stating that I am a Christian, but what about Latter-day Saints have a more biblical theology than ours brothers and sisters in Christ. And so, we we believe in additional things that are not in Bibles, just like Christians of the first centuries believed in things that are not in Old Testament, but nothing of what we are we believe, does not contradict Bibles. We are not Christians only for The Bible, as well as early Christians New Testament. Solos scriptorra is not biblical, and the limitations of your knowledge already revealed the word was thinking ancient Jews, which were too stubborn, so that learn more about Yahweh. They expected, that the Messiah would be fierce a military leader, not gentle lambs. So Jews believed in another Messiah in this sense.
Likewise, uh, Christians of the world practitioners believe in another Jesus. However, I I still think they are Christians through next slide, where we will get to definitions. If you open the dictionary, he will tell you that A Christian is one who who believes in the teachings Jesus Christ and adheres to it.
So my first Question to Daniel: why definition Christian in the dictionary has insufficient? If we we don't use this definition, how about definition in the Bible, what Jesus said Christ? He said: " According to this, all people They will know that you are Mine.
students, if you have any love for each other". So I would ask the student, He says: "My disciples, Is there a disciple of Christ?
Christian? I would said yes. Then this poem may sound like this: "According to this, everyone people will know that you My Christians, if You will have love alone.
to one." So now this is not based on theology or denominations. Now this is based on the fact that What's in your heart, what actually sounds much more in agreement with what Jesus teaches. So mine next question to Daniel: whether enough of this definition Christian by Christ?
If not, why?
Protestants, critics, critical Protestants relate to Christianity is not as much as faith, how much as before public company.
As a mainstream Protestantism several bought centuries ago controlling shares, and they are sitting in the hall corporation meetings, look around and they say: "Well, we belongs to the majority shares, so we can to dictate who has a place at the table." My opponent, baptist, can choose their own definition Christian. But if there is no definition in in the dictionary or in definition, which Christ divides, then I I just throw it away.
If he will insist on determining that refers to symbols faith, I would ask him : "What about Christians, who followed Jesus and listened to him sermons in New Testament? Symbols of faith have not yet been written.
Weren't they?
Christians? What had authority authors of the symbols of faith, what the dictionary doesn't have and Jesus? If you can you use arbitrary definition Christian, which perfect fit for your reign, What will stop me?
do the same?
How do we know that?
the church fathers, who contribute to further development of the church, not Were you wrong? Or Do you all think so?
church cathedrals authoritative, or only those that match yours taste of Christianity?
Jesus often emphasized orthopraxy, not on orthodoxy. Therefore, definition of mine opponent not only not will be biblical, it contradicts the teachings Christ. Let's move on to slide about architect. Imagine, that the architect makes perfect plans of the great buildings, conveys drawings to the brigade, and then leaves. Plans remain under rain. They damaged, lost, fragmented.
The team does everything.
possible, doing assumption that replace them with your own ideas to fill gaps, and they They are building a building.
After all, the architect sees his version buildings, and then hires another crew and gives them a copy original blue drawing (e- there are). This new brigade builds the right one building on the same the same area as the first building. And the first the brigade, offended, says: "Your building not at all like ours." New brigade answers: "That's right."
. We have original plans. Look".
But they refuse look at the plans new brigade. "I already I know what your plans are.
are wrong, because your the building is wrong, and she looks different than mine. But your plans were damaged," he says new brigade. "No, they were not." Old The brigade protests.
No pun intended. « Look at the evidence ", says the new team, pointing to drawing of the old woman brigades. "You see, there several types of paper, taped together with in different handwriting. It as a version of the drawing from monster movie Frankenstein. It clearly not original.
Look at ours plans. Simply "Look." But they not only refuse to see our plans, referring to the Book Mormon. They announce to the world, what about this new team cannot be trusted, their plans are wrong, and that their building at all not like them. Ago they cannot be perceived seriously. Jesus Christ founded their original church.
Now he is not controls freedom will. People use their own own free will, to reject prophets and apostles of the New Testament. So after their death intervened unauthorized persons, councils and philosophers, who have rethought doctrines and filled in the gaps.
They united biblical text from Greek philosophy.
And before you do that realize, religion will be almost unrecognizable compared to the church New Testament. So by the 1800s it mainstream Christianity believes in many true doctrines, but also in some false doctrines.
So when Jesus Christ through his servant of Joseph Smith restores, it seemed b, a new religion that exactly matches plan of the church of the New Testament, restores her, because she is not corresponds to their spoiled plans, what were they like accustomed to accept as absolute standard, and she looks for them strange. But you you might say: "But you say that Jesus is not was able to keep his the church alive for 1700 years?
Well, Jesus didn't controls our freedom of action. It It depended on us. And not would be an exaggeration to believe that it the church could to fall away, because all reason for existence Protestants consists in that they acknowledged corruption in the Catholic Church, that it wasn't biblical church.
Otherwise they wouldn't felt the need to establish one's own own. Actually, Roger Williams founded the first Baptist church in To the New World. But he could not exist longer than a year to make it conscience is not suggested to him that it's still not the same New Testament church without the keys of the Kingdom Heavenly. So during the year he renounced his faith, of the Baptist faith, and announced himself recovery seeker New Testament church.
Founder Baptist faith in America with I would go enthusiastically.
according to Joseph Smith.
If you look carefully look at the first one century, you can go to next slide.
Early communication Christianity with Judaism structurally identical connection Mormonism with traditional Christianity in the 19th century century. So, in first century AD Judaism was established traditional religion. He had the Torah. He had oral law. He had, uh, years of religious continuity, century. It was absolute deep interest, uh, entrenched monopoly, I quote, end of quote.
Not exactly, but you You understand. But then Jesus appeared from Nazareth and its early followers.
They didn't come to Jerusalem and not said, "Hey everyone, we we are starting brand new, not related to this religion. We are not Jewish cult. No, they claimed, which are real heirs of Judaism. They spoke.
religious establishment: "We are not we refuse to the faith of our fathers.
We are not getting rid of of this religion. We are hers.
climax, execution." It was several centuries without prophet between Malachi and Ivan Baptist. Ivan and Jesus claimed that paternal tradition lost its way.
She was disfigured.
people, and what their the tradition was legal the restoration of Judaism. In fact they were real Jews in in this sense. And in this in the context of doctrine Christianity is established religious monopoly among Christians. It has Bible, symbols of faith, century continuity, and here Joseph appears.
Smith. But he doesn't claims that initiates brand new unchristian cult. Its the statement was the same as in early saints in The New Testament, which said: "We we restore the lost traditions." Therefore, Christians of the first century was not considered themselves as non-Jews. They thought that practice true Judaism, yes just as we think, what we practice real Christianity. It a perfect parallel. AND this parallel, you you can go to next slide about the founder. In this parables each of you has a prophetic charismatic founder, who radically rethinks sacred text parental traditions. Jesus by essentially said: "You all this time preach falsehood doctrines." Do you remember?
, in Nagorno-Karabakh sermon he said: "You heard that this the ancients said, but I tell you." He directly contradicts established accepted religious theological traditions. And then he claims to exclusive access to the presiding authority, as Joseph Smith did it.
But that's not quite it.
similarly. You protest because Jesus was the son of God.
Joseph Smith was not By God. He was just a person. And he introduced a new book of the Holy Scriptures from the air. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. WITH Pharisee's point of view first century, Jesus did not fulfill prophecies. You ask the Pharisee at that time, he violently violated their law. He healed on the Sabbath, talked to unclean, challenged authority text as they read it understood. So, with majority point of view religious people, Jesus was at his best.
case of the offender rules in their time and in at worst, a heretic, possessed by demons.
Just like Joseph Smith for distribution Christianity is in at best a rule breaker and in at worst, a heretic, possessed by demons.
Joseph Smith created The Book of Mormon, which radically introduced new teachings that were lost for Christianity for many years, and in both cases they bypassed the established religious guards.
Both movements claimed that there is parental tradition. Both claim that main tradition at that time fell into apostasy. In both in the most passionate cases critics of this new versions of religion turned out the most religious and the most cruel.
Christians of the first century were expelled from synagogues, accused, persecuted and killed. Likewise, at 19 century saints last days encountered similar negative reaction. Their rejected, expelled, raped, killed and were expelled from one state to another. This is the one the same scenario, only with a difference of several centuries. So why is this?
importantly? This is important, because Mormonism genealogically there is continuous with Christianity. If Christianity considered legal the development of Judaism, in spite of introduction massive tradition, which destroys theological disagreements, then Mormonism logically must be recognized development Christianity. My the opponent may say, that Jesus was God, and his changes in Judaism were valid, but Joseph Smith is not God, therefore his changes cannot be valid. However, this imposes on me question, and it's circular thinking.
Let's move on to the slide: “Oh, I’m ahead of you.
I'm ahead of you.
OK". Therefore, the problem is that he assumes that revolution, caused by Jesus Christ, is true, and therefore, in his opinion, Christianity is true. Keep it on mean that we also we believe that Jesus is God, and Christianity, and all that other stuff. But I say that Jews the first century is not believe that Jesus is By God. Therefore, according to in Hebrew perspective 2000 years ago, his the changes are the same invalid, as well as Joseph Smith's changes, which you are talking about. So if modern Protestant rejects Mormonism, couldn't it?
whether a Sadducee or a Pharisee first century use the same one logic to reject early Christianity?
So, to establish, why is mormonism invalid, but Christianity is valid 2000 years ago, to my opponent need non-circular the principle that justifies the breakup Christianity with Judaism, at the same time rejecting the gap Mormonism with Christianity. But in he is gone. He converts to Christianity only from the same ones reasons why early Jews continued to remain Jewish even after Christ.
The only reasons why he must reject Mormonism, these are the same reasons why Jews rejected Christianity. And I just imagine yourself. I as a Christian first century, which offers you, to the first Jew century, new and eternal covenant. And the same the arguments you use to throw away mine Christianity, the same reasons why you, like Protestant, reject Mormonism. So show me objective rule, when religious movements are allowed to radically change your parent's tradition. Whatever you don't rule used for justification of the New I swear, I will use for justification restoration. My the interlocutor can to claim that some doctrines Latter-day Saints are absent from the Bible, just like some main Christian doctrines are absent in Bibles. Jews claimed about authority, saying: " No more prophets. We have the Torah.
". Protestants say : "No more prophets. We have Bible". Therefore, Mormonism, uh, it will say that Mormonism unbiblical and therefore unchristian. But in fact we are more biblical. If you go to next slide, you you will see what we have same structure and church organization New Testament with the foundation of the prophets and the apostles. And on next slide you you will see what we have doctrines set forth in Bibles. But none of these doctrines that you you will see on this slide, is not faith ours Protestant brothers and sisters. On early 4th century destroyed remains churches of Christ were torn apart by disputes. And therefore Konstantin intervened.
Why wasn't he a prophet?
Pope, apostles? It proof that little place of apostasy.
Jesus never said, that the government will rely on political leaders after death apostles. So on these appeared in the cathedrals false doctrines, such as like a trinity, hypopathic union. Emm, this is not in the Bible. The language they used for description of the trinity, contradicts the language that used apostles of the New Testament. And now, when you hear how Protestants explain God and what he is different from the perspective of God Latter-day Saints, you will notice that they use Greek terms such as as motionless movement and, uh, out of time and space without parts or passions. So how?
Protestants can accuse us of heresy if we discard some of their beliefs, because the very origin Protestantism comes from their protest against spoiled Christian beliefs of his time, times of the Reformation. Yes many Protestants realized these problems and massive are losing members communities or generations.
They may ask: "You can go to slide with, apparently, scale. Where should I go?
to apply for to keep one's faith in Christ, but mother more organization, structures and authority without corruption Catholicism? This is here, Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints.
To my opponent need to do three things. He must to provide a definition Christian. He must authoritatively implement it and to provide non-circular a rule that includes Christianity, but excludes recovery until he gets them will provide. He did not prove that we are not Christians.
He only showed that We are not Baptists. And I I give in to my sometimes. Good. Perfectly.
Daniel, the truth.
saying, I got confused time tracking in in this case. So do your thing, brother. If this will last more than 20 minutes, I'll stop you.
But now your word, manly. Your word.
Good. Well, I get it.
all sorts of great prizes.
Hmm. Yes. IN I have a timer for 18 minutes. What was that? IN I have 18 minutes.
timers ready for use if you want. Uh, oh no. I already I understand. I-I gathered.
I pressed "reset" instead of "forward". So Now is your time, Daniel.
Okay, great. Well, perfectly. First, I I want to thank you very much, uh, to Devin for that he came here, was ready to discuss, and Ward Radio for being They did it. Um, I am very I respect what we we can lead this respectful dialogue, and This is truly my heart, and what I do in politics, and what I I do it on my own.
channels, I'm trying return this, uh, the respectful one dialogue that we need needed in our country. And you know, uh, I I'll tell you, Devin, you seem stole one of mine analogies. I just was going to use Donald Trump. Um, I said, uh, you know, simply, and let I should probably start with this. You know, for those who is following me, because of my political views, you can to ask a question, why is it important discuss this the question of whether there is LDS real Christians or not.
Politics is important, because she affects your here and now. But the truth about God, the Bible and religion is not affected only for you here and now, but also on your eternity. If I believed a lie, I would was hoping that someone will take care of me so much that with to show respect me, where am I wrong, especially regarding issues with eternal consequences.
And I am sure that Devon would say that exactly. Unlike what he says the internet, what we don't agree, does not mean that we must to hate one thing one or ignore each other. My goal tonight— to speak the truth with with love. And if you don't agree with me, I I hope that this the conversation motivates you to study independently Bible and statements SPD organizations. AND let the truth do it you are free. Um, I was going to use Donald Trump, but, you know, if I had there was a friend named Donald Trump and I would said he was 30 years old, he is short growth, poor and extremely modest person, but you using Joe Biden, so we're with him.
We agree. So, if I say that this my friend, this is not means to say that precisely, because, obviously, Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints has the term Jesus, but it's not necessarily that exactly the same as human personality, which we are talking about.
Similarly, if we want to know what we we follow Jesus, we need to make sure that we we know who we really are is Jesus. And I am with I am looking forward to it.
discussion of this tonight. So when we discuss, Are LDS Christians?
um, and I can accidentally tell me if I can to say in Mormon, sometimes it is not disrespect. It's simple.
from habit. Hmm, but let's start with biblical definition of, um, that, What is Christian?
life. I will describe this, using The Bible. Mark 7:20. AND He said, "All that comes from a person, then defiles her. Because of human heart evil thoughts come out, debauchery, theft, murder, adultery, covetousness, cunning, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, Pride, stupidity—everything this evil is coming out from the inside, and it defiles a person. But, as in Revelation 21:8, cowardly, unfaithful, vile, murderers, debauchers, sorcerers, idolaters and all liars— their fate will be in burning lake with fire and brimstone, and this death of a friend. Ivan 6:28 Then He said To him: "What do we need?"
need to do to to do the works of God?
Jesus answered them, “This is It is God's will that you believed in Him Who He sent. Jesus said to them, “I am the bread life. Who is coming?
to Me, not will starve, and who believes in Me, never "will not thirst." Isaiah 53:5, but He was pierced for our sins, He was tormented for our lawlessness, punishment of peace was on Him, and by His wounds we healed. And then 2 Corinthians 5:17, therefore, who in Christ, the new creature. Old gone, here comes the new happened. Titus 3:4 and the following. And when?
grace has appeared and philanthropy Our Savior God, He saved us not by works of righteousness, not by deeds righteousness that we done, and with of His mercy, through the font revival and renewal of the Holy The Spirit, which He has abundantly poured out on us through Jesus Christ, Our Savior, so that we, justified by Him by grace, became alive with hope eternal life. It The word is true. And I want to so that you and I want insist on this, so that those who believe in God, carefully dedicated themselves good deeds. Therefore, The Bible teaches that people by nature prone to sin, and that when we sin against God, there is fair punishment for our sin, which consists of the lake of fire, and that this punishment was accepted by Jesus in our place on the cross. Then He rose from the dead.
the dead and commands everyone to repent, begging Him for mercy. And then revives the dead sinner. This is a miracle.
salvation. And gives us Your salvation is not thanks to our deeds, and thanks to His amazing grace. Then He changes our old heart and gives us a new heart, which is no longer prone to sin, and now inclined to respect God, that we may have a new nature. So is it possible?
to consider the Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints Last Days Christian? Well, SPD organization, I I think it's clear differs from that, er, clearly differs from what I would call biblical Christianity. It faith and truth, which we see in the Bible, which Jesus taught and apostles. Saints last days ground their faith on what it teaches Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Precious The pearl and the teaching are so called modern prophets. They also they say they believe in The Bible is so how much is she right translated, to what we will be back for a minute. In the end, everyone these books, besides the Bible, draw their own authority from statements of one man, Joseph Smith. Joseph did a radical statement that he got a direct revelation from God about what everyone Christian confessions are false, that their religion is an abomination in the sight of God.
If this is true, we should listen to what Joseph says.
If not, then all faith The SPD is collapsing, therefore that it is built around him the statement that he seer, translator and prophet.
I want to evaluate that what he taught, and to check if there was Joseph Smith to those to whom can be trusted, claiming that The Bible is corrupted and what all other religious groups, except for him, are abomination. If it statement is not withstand criticism, then he was one of those about whom Jesus warned in Gospel of Mark 13:22, which says: “For False Christs will arise.
and false prophets, and will perform signs and miracles." If it the statements were false, then organization of saints last days, built on his statements, cannot to be real Christianity. My first statement is that teachings of Joseph Smith and early leaders Church of the Saints The Last Days, which talked about who will receive a curse, contradict what The Bible teaches.
Based on stories from the first the mouth of one of the wives Joseph Smith, he told in his autobiographies that when she was 14 or 15 years, Joseph Smith came to her house and wrote: "Quote, I heard him teach and explained the principle "celestial marriage."
After which he said what she said me. Joseph Smith said to me: "If you you take this step, it will provide your eternal salvation and elevation, as well as your father's house and your whole family."
I don't pay attention to the fact that he was such that she was only 14 or 15 years old, or what?
he was married to more than 30 women for your life. Rather, I draw attention to Joseph's promise Smith, I gave it to him.
in his own words, that, entering into polygamous marriage, Joseph Smith guaranteed that she will receive eternal salvation, as well as its family. This contradicts because the Bible teaches about salvation.
Salvation is when God takes out this old heart and gives us new things when we put our faith in Him alone sacrifice. Successor the Prophet Joseph Smith was Brigham Young, in honor of which named University Brigham Young. In the 11th volume of the "Journal of Conversations" "he said about polygamy: "When is this revelation for the first time was read to me Joseph Smith, I I saw him clearly.
great trials, as well as problems and persecutions that it will bring everything to this people. But The Lord revealed this, and it was my duty accept this. I want tell all members churches and kingdoms that in the hearts of many, hmm, and many of them are desire for the doctrine polygamy is not studied and not practiced by us.
This can be difficult.
for many, and especially for women.
This is the word of God. And I I want to say, and I want to tell you and everything world, what if you all heartily wish get blessings that received Abraham, you will be polygamists at least in my opinion faith, otherwise you will not you will be able to enjoy salvation and glory, which Abraham received.
This is as true as and that God lives.
The only people who become gods, continuing the quote, the only people who become gods, even sons of God, these are they who enters polygamy. Others achieve fame and may even be admitted to presence..." father and son, but they can't to reign like kings in glory, because they were proposed blessings, and they refused them accept. Then, um, continuing from there, um, I heard he did too said: "I heard revelation about polygamy, and I believe in this with all my heart, and I know it's from God. I know that he revealed it from heaven. I I know it's true."
It seems that the emphasis here is done. And then he continues: "How do you Do you think we will?
ever accepted as a state to the union, not denying the principle polygamy? If we they won't accept, um, then us never will accept." Uh, Joseph Smith in Teachings and Testament 123, which is official Mormon scriptures, says that if his wife Emma is not will accept supposedly a commandment from God that Joseph Smith must take several wives, it will be destroyed.
Now it's official LDS scripture, which somehow says that if Emma believes that The Bible says about God's design for marriage as one man, one woman, and for everything life, she didn't give of his consent to Joseph take another one. wife, she will receive judgment from God. This contradicts because of what it teaches Bible. Jesus said about salvation. He said: "Whoever believes in Son, has eternal life, and whoever does not believe in the Son, he will not see life ". "My second argument in favor why SPD is not Christians, is in that early leadership claimed about The Bible. In accordance with eighth article of faith SPD, we believe that The Bible is the word of God.
as far as she is concerned right translated. Now, the video that sparked these debates, I will consider here. Now that you ask anyone last saint days to determine that translated right, what's wrong, they will not be able to to give you none full list. But Joseph Smith noted, quote: "I believe the Bible the way it was read, when she first came out of the pen original authors ". Now Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and others say that The Bible has become distorted, and therefore need a new one revelation, so that to clarify that really wanted God said. That's why The Book of Mormon and others revelations were given Joseph Smith, to help clarify some things that were lost from the First Book of Nephi. If you reread this section, it says about how the Bible was handed down to the times apostles and pagans, and she is all was still clean. AND then after that, only after Jesus..." Simple and valuable things were allegedly taken from Scriptures. In this the order of events in the passage clear. Writing, Old and New Testaments were transferred unclean from Jews to the apostles, and then to the pagans. Only then this passage claims that, quote, simple and valuable truths were taken from Bibles after the times of 12 apostles of Jesus. By in the words of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith also says that he received an order translate the Bible from the website of the Central Social Security Administration.
Quote, uh, Smith received divine task to do translation and considered his, quote, part of your the calling of a prophet.
This also indicates his divine vocation and the ministry of the prophet Joseph Smith. DNC24 says: "If he will fulfill My please, let him publish new translation of My holy word for inhabitants of the earth." "It his translation of the Bible.
End of quote. IN Joseph's translation Smith there are two places where Joseph Smith inserted self-prophecy in this Bible. One— extended version Genesis 50. And he added, that the biblical Joseph supposedly prophesied about another Joseph, Joseph Smith, in whose father was on name Joseph, because his was called Junior. And this doesn't have any historical evidence until the 1800s. Yet more obvious the problem is because when Joseph Smith, uh, with Joseph's translation Smith, Joseph Smith adds large parts to Isaiah 29, including one more thing that supposedly there was, uh, prophecy about Joseph Smith. And I I'll just show you, for example, these, uh, all different ones nearby texts that Joseph Smith allegedly added to The Bible in the book of Isaiah.
Again, no none historical, uh, description or historical manuscripts, what would it be confirmed. AND quotes, some of which, what he wrote were, and it will happen, I quote, and It will happen that the Lord God will bring out the words for you.
books. There is no one another who could have her read, except several, according to God's will. End quotes. This is clearly link to the Book Mormon. Now, because in the First Nephi 13 it was claimed that The Bible will not lose their simple and valuable parts before time apostles, we can check again whether Joseph Smith spoke truth. Was it?
prophecy? Was it?
prophecy about him himself in the book that Isaiah wrote, and whether was it given to Jesus and twelve to the apostles, who supposedly were given clean uncleanness, was he a fraud? Well, big one The scroll of Isaiah proves, what is wrong assertion. We have the scroll that was written for a hundred years before arrival Jesus. And you know what? That, that Joseph Smith wrote in his Bible translation, nowhere to be found in this scroll. Now, finally, the last one the moment I want to do, and I I hope I have there will be enough time for this. IN You have plenty of time. IN there are about six of you minutes, brother. You Well done. Good. Good.
What? Good. Sounds good. Um, the last one the moment concerns whether there is SPD organization Christian organization or not?
Um, this is the Book of Abraham.
Joseph Smith many times declared about translation of books, including Books Mormon, of gold plates that contained a language that no one the other did not know, ancient Egyptian reformed language.
Because the plates were returned to heaven before others were able to translate or try translate, we don't we have the final a way to tell whether he allegedly did correct translation, or wrong.
Some people claim that saw them. We just we will take it for granted a coin that people really saw plates, but not in who was not there enough time to try translate, were there they are correct.
However, when we we are talking about the Book Abraham, we have a way to check whether was he really supernatural translator, as stated in The Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants. In 1830 Joseph Smith in the 1930s bought several Egyptian artifacts from Egypt on the Church website Latter-day Saints.
It says, and I quote: " After Joseph Smith examined the papyrus.
and started translating some characters or hieroglyphs, — tells it history, —on our great joy, we discovered that one of the plates contained the writings of Abraham." « So, he gets these scrolls, learns that This is supposedly a writing from USA, by hand Abraham, and he calls it title. So he translated it, published, and he became part of official writings Church of Jesus Christ.
When the book of Abraham was the first time published, it was the name of this publications. There was written: "Translation the books of Abraham, written by him with one's own hand on papyrus and found in "the catacombs of Egypt." « So, in short, Joseph Smith had what he considered papyrus, written by myself by the hand of Abraham. And he finally translated this Egyptian document to what is now The Book of Abraham in Mormon scriptures. At that time the Egyptian language was not enough understandable.
Rosetta Stone, who, uh, allowed modern scientists translate between in modern languages and Egyptian, just now was found and not was well understood.
Joseph, and Joseph himself Smith didn't know.
Egyptian language, but claimed that he could translate it prophetic gift and by the power of God. On official website Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints we read that in July In 1835 he was constantly was engaged in translation alphabet book Abraham and organized grammar Egyptian language, as this was practiced ancient. Manuscripts, which were sold to him, the manuscripts he had, were sold after his death and were reopened approximately in the middle 1960s. And finally, we have an artifact that can check whether really Joseph Smith had a supernatural ability translate. AND reading from Again anyway, the CSPD website, quote: "Saints the last days and unholy of the last days, uh, Egyptologists, those people who study Egypt, agree, that symbols and fragments not respond translation, given in the book Abraham. "End quotes. Besides, the document comes from more than a thousand years to life Abraham, who contradicts Joseph's statement Smith that he was handwritten Abraham. Now there is several images, a few pictures if you want. Hmm, they have a fancier name, but for the purposes of this they have discussions several facsimiles, several images of what was supposedly in those manuscripts which he had to create the books of Abraham. And if you could, uh, place one of them, I placed it in, uh -e, Google Docs, if you can do it find. But in basically, one of them he posted and says, that it is very discredits him statement about ability translate. THERE ARE picture, uh, from one from the documents, which he translated Fax 3. And, first of all, he claimed that the guy who is sitting on the throne or, it seems, on the throne, was Abraham, although actually it was Egyptian god, uh, Osiris. Then he continued, saying that a person who is standing behind, uh, the guy on throne, was king Pharaoh whose name given..." in symbols over his head. It part of the original publications when they published these facsimile comparison, and actually, but if you will look at picture, I have it on only me in mind, this looks like a woman.
So maybe he thought about, uh, simply because we thinking about mummies etc. So, perhaps in it turned out like this impression, but he said that this is the king Pharaoh. In fact, it is there was a woman, and it was actually, how written on this inscription above the head, great Isis, mother God's. So, it was female character, which was supposedly the husband's mother, who is sitting, or husband of a husband, sitting. So he was wrong. And he specifically translated, he claimed that in this particular one The signature stated, What is this, uh, King Pharaoh, was written above head of a person on image. So, in short, he couldn't even translate simple Egyptian hieroglyph on this one artifacts. So why are we must trust him about the rest documents that he, he -e, claimed that can you translate?
Now, if the version Latter-day Saints about the afterlife it's true, me absolutely nothing worry about.
The worst thing is that I I will get this.
celestial kingdom. According to Scripture LDS, glory of heaven surpasses any understanding. But, probably based on LDS teachings, I actually, probably, I will get to middle sky. So, I will probably be there.
average level heavens, terrestrial kingdom. So this is even better than the lowest form of heaven.
And according to the teaching SPD, very, very little people actually will go to the bad places where it is located Satan. And so, honestly saying, if it were The truth is, you know, I, if it were true, uh, or you know, if it was true that very few people will go to the bad places where it is located Satan, I would honestly I wanted this. But The Bible says absolutely other. She says that wide gate and easy the road leading to destruction, and many those who enter it.
The Bible also says in 2 Corinthians 5: “Knowing fear of the Lord, we "We convince people."
But if the majority people, even without LDS Mormon faith, going to a very good places why we should, why fear The Lord must convince? to us convince them? Uh, in conclusion, in Gospel of Matthew 25, when they show us, that there are only two places judgment: or in God's kingdom, or in eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, if Mormon theology last days true, then to me absolutely nothing worry about. I I will find myself in reality.
a good place. But if the Bible is true, and you will not be found in the righteousness of Christ, when will you stand before Him on the day of judgment, then there is no other choice, except eternal fire. That's why in Scriptures Today It is said: if you you will hear His voice, don't petrify yourself hearts.
Good. Perfectly. H 19 with half a minute.
Pretty good. Now We are April, I will be much better in this in the future. Good. THERE ARE -uh, just so smooth the situation, before we move on to the refutations, I I'll just read it.
four superchats, which are comments. That there was more room for questions that people have arise later. THERE ARE- oh, very quickly, that Mormons C say something, is technically the only one religion that can be to call themselves Christians, because they are the only ones, who has a ritual unction. Christ means anointed one.
Then I also understood that this will probably be a difficult battle, considering that many Mormons will observe. I I just didn't want to.
to talk about Mormon super- chat rooms. So I literally dialed "someone" asked to share something nice about Daniel" so I can do it read. And they came, they came for us. Chris Breeze says: "For your sake I am frank and calm.
I would break up with you.
bread, Phidianus." Me I like to see sensible people, who participate in such discussions. "AND also someone literally just now shared, quote: " Something nice about Daniel. "So, we among friends.
I'll take both.
You'll take both.
Good. Then we are among friends. So, uh, yours refutation. Devine, You have eight minutes.
Yes?
10.
10 minutes. Let's start. 10 minutes, Devin. Come on.
Good. So, he mentioned polygamy.
His logic seems to be yes, you will have to Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like he's saying that they practice polygamy, so they not Christians. Through this bible verse, uh- uh, one man, one husband, one wife. And, uh, me will have to check again. I these passages from the New Testament of one wife. I think why they need clarification that is possible to have only one wife? But, uh, I I think that in mine the opening statement, which, justice for the sake of, it was his by way of introduction, therefore he has not received yet refutation. But in order to to establish whether we Christians or not, to him will have to to establish, uh, which criteria" makes us non-Christians. Therefore, here he listed a bunch of things with which he doesn't agree, and that's normally. I ask, like any of these things that make me non-Christian?
For example, polygamy.
I mean, in We see the Bible Abraham and Jacob, and all these people who practice polygamy. So the question is so, did God want it, for this to happen? Well, if you look at 2 Samuel 127 and 8, word The Lord speaks to Daniel, says to David, what I give you your wives the owner. If The Lord gave David several wives, why The Lord would be against it.
this? Hmm, that's true.
non-politically correct way to say this, but polygamy, uh, polygamy and murder that they have common, so this is what that they both sinful, except cases when God ordered this. Uh, something What else did he say?
-uh, Joseph Smith added yourself to the Bible. I I think he has a... I mean, what he says, therefore, not a Christian.
Well, I mean, Moses added himself to Bibles, right? Uh, therefore, JST, therefore He refers to some from these passages, where he, Joseph's translation Smith, says: "Here's what The Bible speaks of it". “Uh, um, looks like Daniel's conclusion is that Bible translation Joseph Smith is that Joseph Smith restores the Bible to its original state, but Joseph's translation Smith never claimed this. JST —it's simple inspired comment to the Bible, and, um, we don't we expect that he will coincide with original, because it just a comment. So That's beside the point. Uh, The Book of Abraham. Uh, I wonder if Daniel knows that the Book Abraham actually exists.
one of the strongest evidence in favor of Joseph Smith, from what you can to conclude: " God, he's either very- very good guess, or here is there some kind of supernatural help". Uh, he brought, uh, Facsimile 3, where Joseph Smith said: "Oh, this Abraham. Where Egyptologists say: " No, it's Osiris." And I added to the document Google, er, in facsimile number one, so that you could share. But, uh, yes, that's it actually not at all worries because Jesus Christ, he would even in the Gospel from Luke..." In the 16th he told the chapter the story of Osiris from Egyptian folklore, but changed names and meanings Lazarus, you know, Lazarus and the rich man.
Here is an example of how take the Egyptian history and tell her a new story history. So, these facsimile, yes, we we agree that this traditionally Osiris, and you can take this history and tell her a new story history. So this is perfectly. In addition, you do you mean explanation, not translations. Book Mormon, Teachings Covenants, Precious Pearl or, sorry, The Book of Moses, you you will see what is there used the word "translation", translated Book Moses, translated The Book of Mormon. But when it comes to it to the book of Abraham, these facsimile and explanation of the meanings, you you will see that actually in the book Abraham never used the word "translation". There "explanation" is written.
This is a comment. So, uh, I think you assume that this there must be something that, like Egyptologist, maybe pass literal translation, but it's not the same the statement that we we do. So, you share this factmile. So, here it is, uh, you see Egyptian symbols in the fields. So, this is fragment that was found, and the writing in the fields not correspond to the book Abraham. Here it is was his statement.
He says, "Oh, you see, This is clearly false.
translation". But this okay, because it is scroll length 12-13 meters, and these few inches were found, or they were not burned during Greater Chicago fires. And very often in Egyptian scrolls can be found facsimile image, which is not quite corresponds to the text.
They found evidence of what is usually one artist and one scribe and artist draws a factimile, leaves room for letters, and then passes it on to the author, and the author fills it in. And often, as in textbook for college, the text is not always immediately corresponds to the graphics, which is sometimes written in text, see drawing 4.2, and it is located on two pages further. So even with our...complicated technology in textbooks, according to which we can't align correctly text with image, how could it be to expect people to thousands of years ago Will they be able to master it?
So, that's normal.
. So it doesn't bother us.
So it's nothing.
refutes. Uh, it seems like, he hinted that test a false prophet or a true prophet there are false prophecies.
But the Bible never doesn't say that.
The Bible never says that if you give false prophecy, you false prophet. This is what he read into the text. THERE ARE- Well, I wonder what happened when people are talking about that Joseph Smith was false prophet, they always avoid the prophet's trial Jesus Christ. The only one the prophet's trial, which we have in Bible, spoken God himself in the flesh.
But why is everyone avoiding it?
this test prophet, when are trying refute Joseph Smith? The Gospel from Matthew, chapter 7, Jesus said: "There will be many false prophets, but for their fruits you "You will know them." "Good The tree bears good fruit.
fruits. You can to determine whether it is good tree, having tasted fruit. So, what are the fruits?
Joseph Smith? Book Mormon, this church.
What are the fruits of this church?
? The people of this church, What is their reputation?
For what, you know, look, if this the church was not true, you would expected much more more corruption. AND you would expect that church leaders will immerse their hands in the piggy bank churches. But you don't do you see any no parties, no yachts, no models, no gold watches, none sports cars. A Book Mormon— the most Christian book on the planet. It even the most Protestant book on the planet. I am not I can imagine that Daniel, are you reading?
The Book of Mormon, mine a parable about architect, said: "Look at my plans." "They refuse look at the plans.
They are reading the Book.
Mormon. Not refuse to read The Book of Mormon. It the most Protestant the book you once- Have you ever read? I am not I can just read it, and then write to me first the section you are in you will reach, with whom you are disagree with something. I am not I can imagine what it would be like.
happened if you ever- have you ever come across this section. Good. Uh, then he remembered Helen Mar Kimble, where is he?
speaks of action and salvation, where it says, what if we are sealed, your exaltation will be guaranteed. THERE ARE- Well, to be honest, I don't familiar with this quote, but, uh, they were not married in in this life. Helmar Kimble, they were just sealed but not married. It was a rite where it is said: "As just the two of us we will die, then "Our marriage will begin."
"And, uh, when your exaltation definitely not your deeds bring Are you saved?
exaltation, and deeds needed. And I think, that you will believe this, because what do you need to do to achieve salvation? Well, you must accept love, redemption and the grace of Christ. So it is the act of receiving this salvation through our affairs. But ours deeds do not bring us heaven. And he says about receiving a certain exaltation, while you or your I don't have any.
our rise, because, as in Jesus Christ, we haven't yet.
got theirs the last judgment. Uh, he shared Quote by Brigham Young about polygamy. It good. Topic of discussion —whether we are Christians or No. Uh, no, or Brigham Young is a true prophet.
Uh, he, uh, he says, what if I don't I will convert, I will go to quite a nice place.
This is true. If you look at the parable about workers in the vineyard which he gave Jesus, uh, you know, that even those who are started the last hour work, and they received the same reward. So if… You are not converted to churches, until you will die, let's say, if I will survive you, and then I baptized you for the dead, and then you you decide to accept him, then how are you employee at vineyard, which works in the last hour. You have that.
you will get to celestial kingdoms in the last moment. And if you don't you will accept it, it is good. You can go.
to the Protestant paradise. This is our second one.
heaven. What you are you describe it as heaven, almost the same as our second heavens, as they are described. And you?
What do you think I have?
stimulus? Well, you can.
to get that much grace, how much God is ready for you.
offer. And if do you want to accept only partial grace and go to second heavens, if That's where you'll be.
happy, that's good.
But if you accept Its restored the gospel now, then you will get much more. This is something on like a cruise and not you know you have access to all the food and games.
As if you brought from a bunch of crackers.
And like, dude, This is here so that you enjoyed. You no need to take it.
We are not going to you force. So you you ask: "What is your stimulus?" This is something on like how a person on a cruise says : "What incentive do I have?"
go and eat all this free food and play all these games?
»"Well, that's enough."
amazing.
The blessings we we get, the force that you get, this...Oh, My God. And simply wait until you receive a gift Holy Spirit. This...This changes the rules of the game.
So, uh, I think I quite, uh, carefully answered most of it questions, but again yes, he will have to to turn to, What is a Christian?
What, uh, what he has the authority, to install it? And I I give my time.
Good. He is 15 seconds old.
longer, Daniel. Therefore, you have a 15-second Buffer, buddy. Your refutation.
I will accept it. I him I will accept. Good. Good.
So let me, uh- uh, try it consider everything.
I hope I did.
enough notes.
So, uh, first of all, is Does this give salvation? Or Does this give salvation? Therefore, he placed a pair questions about what we we mean by Christian.
Of course. Perfectly.
Great question. Uh, could there be a difference in teachings and individual people. So I I actually have means organization, and not a specific..." person, which are part of organizations. Because or Can someone come in?
Mormon Church and be a Christian?
Of course. You know, if I went to churches, it didn't would me non-Christian.
Even if someone was new to his faith and came to Mormon Church, became its member, potentially he still could be Christian. The same concerns Baptist church, Mormon Church or, um, um, Methodist Church, whatever it is, they can be like Christians, and non-Christians. This is it personality between them and God, not organization, that's what I would say to that. Therefore, There is a difference here. So I I specifically say that this organization of the Saints The Last Days. Is there Are they Christians?
The answer to this question is no. So, you asking about religion, and they teach another gospel than that, erm, really present in the Bible. Well, you know, I I can agree with you, that creed are subordinate Bibles. They are secondary, not equal to the Bible. AND if they teach another gospel or teach something that contradicts the Holy Writing, then Symbols beliefs are wrong. That it concerns the fathers of the church. The same applies to anyone, who calls himself prophet. Uh, in You said in the scriptures, what, um, can God to be God if He decides to bring some other revelation today?
Um, and you know, give a word to someone prophecies or something like this. I wouldn't put that.
beyond the limit opportunities. However, there is key point. It will always be to correspond to Scripture and the truth that was before him. And in this difference between theology of saints the last days and those What does the Bible teach? That, that it contradicts, clearly contradicts the in many aspects because of what happened before it.
So, uh, what, uh, are you they said it was before this, then yes, that which was before this, has answer, and you also said, um, if you believe in the teachings of Jesus and follow them, you Christian, and I would still once said that Jesus, that Joe Biden, that Donald Trump, pro Which one are we talking about? It The God of the Bible or God Mormonism? And again yes, because when you has to to obey the teachings Latter-day Saints, this applies not only to these books. This is also what what, hmm, did it teach and teaches leadership Mormon Church. AND this will be interesting to talk about it later. Uh, you You say that love equals, uh, to be Christian. If you love Me, follow My commandments. You know, with people will recognize this, that you are my disciples. If do you love each other, uh, there are many definitions of love.
Society has definition of love.
But what does it mean to to truly love? AND this again returns to Bibles. There is a difference between by calling himself a Christian.
Of course. Are there people who call themselves Christians, but are not Christians none denominations? Absolutely.
But are they really have a real salvation when God takes this old heart and gives them a new heart with new desires? This is completely another thing. And that's why I I'm talking about church organization, and not about individual members. Er, denomination against church history and religion.
Again, as I already said, the Bible, uh, is my authority.
Now you say that she was distorted.
So it's really about, uh, you know, Joseph Smith to clarify. And what is he did when it translation, and I I'll come back to this later.
second, it said: " Okay, here it is.
spoiled, and this once upon a time right". "However, church today does not accept this, that interesting. Hmm, and hmm, damaged drawings. You gave an example.
damaged drawings. Well, but if I had were copies of others drawings, I would like compare and to see if yours drawing, hmm, is actually the same building, is it a completely different building?
You are building the Eiffel Tower.
tower when we build The White House? For example, there will be a whole row, you know, if you have the same document, this is one. But if your document in full differs from everything we had in recorded history, then a great deal arises question. Then I would asked where you are from They took him. It was your own imagination, or this corresponds prophecies and things, who were before him. Hmm, you mentioned the new one a branch of Judaism, where, as they say, John and Jesus corrected Judaism. AND I don't think so.
right. They are not just corrected, hmm, corrupted religion.
Yes, there were hypocrites.
Were religious leaders." what little problems, but he came to to execute the old one a will that prophesied about arrival of a new the will, where he says, What is the blood of the new?
will, when he was on the last dinner. This is blood.
of the new testament, spilled in my blood.
And you look at The Old Testament, where prophesied about someone who will come, to take it out heart of stone, give a heart of flesh, and I will give new testament, not such as...and in Epistles to the Jews said: "Hmm, because this the will that I "I will make a deal with..." and quoted by Old Covenant: “For this is a covenant, which I will make with the house Israel after those days," he says.
Lord. "I will invest My laws in theirs thoughts, and I will write them on in their hearts, and I will them God, and they They will be my people.
They will not teach every neighbor yours, and everyone's his brother, saying: Know the Lord. For everyone will know me, from small to big. Because I will merciful to their lies, and their sins and their no more guilt I will remember. In that He speaks of the New Covenant, He made the first old man. And therefore This is a completely different covenant.
between God and man. AND there was also death. IN any covenant has death related to The Old Testament. You have There were bloody sacrifices.
In the New Testament there was the ultimate sacrifice Lamb of God. So He I didn't just come.
to correct Judaism. He came to fulfill what was prophesied in The Old Testament. And, as you noted it well, he taught something the opposite of that, What did the Jews teach?
about what Jesus is By God. Well, actually this was also prophesied in The Old Testament, where It is said that His name will be: Wonderful Counselor, God Almighty, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, God strong. This is what prophesied in The Old Testament, and also, um, in others places, but this is one comes to mind. Um, you said that, um, you you know, Jesus was either, or that he was a rule breaker, or Joseph Smith and Jesus was rule breakers.
Well, actually Jesus obeyed the law.
He installed a new one the will that he gave new code of laws for those who will come after him. But he I myself followed the law, and he also started this will with blood. And he doesn't just, you know, he, he got to the point the law, where he said, you know, you heard how It was said in ancient times: no commit adultery. I told you if you look from lust, you commit adultery in to your heart. God got to the root of it, what it consisted of real problem. What God could see the essence problems. Man could only see external. So exactly there was a law. It was an external thing, but the inner is where, um, God Jesus explained it. He didn't change.
law. He performed its. Um, next you Let's say practice polygamy, you say, that I said it was a sin, and that's why I have this problems. Um, well, yeah, in I have problems with this, because again, throughout the Bible, starting from the very beginning the second section, and finishing first section, we see, What is marriage? Um, so the husband will leave his father and mother yours to join to his wife, and there will be two, not three, not twenty-one body. And this is the beginning.
marriage. His God I thought. This is not one.
man, one man. This is not twenty and one. This is one man, one woman for everything life. So this is what, as you know, God conceived, God's design.
Everything else is there.
a distortion of this.
So even we saw in the Bible, where were things, um, about polygamy, there were many problems. Um, and this actually there was no my main idea.
My main idea consisted precisely in promises supposedly the salvation that will be given to the one who has it will do. And there are many other quotes that I could would you like to, um, from all different early apostles etc. leaders in the church.
And this is what you have to deal with.
have to have matter. It's not just about because, is he false prophet or not, but and the whole structure The LDS church says, what you should listen to apostles, priests, prophets and all that other stuff, church leadership, to be, uh, also, to be able to real to raise, to raise.
So, uh, it was also It is said that, uh, that, so there were many others which I could to quote which said the same thing marriage, uh, that Joseph Smith, er, Joseph F.
Smith said that marriage one man and one woman at a time and eternity sealing by the authorities according to God's law is partial execution celestial the law of marriage and is so good, as far as possible; and how much is a man adheres to these the terms of the law, he will get his reward. So, your award or He is not a blessing.
could get on no other basis or condition.
But this is just the beginning.
law, not its entirety course. Okay, just a minute.
I understand the law.
of heavenly marriage yes, that every man in this church, which has ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and not will be cursed. I I mean, I understand that.
means exactly that and nothing less. And I I testify in the name of Jesus, what does this really mean.
So there are many people, which are early Church leadership Latter-day Saints, who repeated that exactly. Even President John Taylor, and I could quote continue, but suffice it to say that This is my problem.
The promise that you can you achieve of the highest level exaltation, of the highest level heaven if you do something that you will be expelled from the church.
So it's not just about because that's not what you must do, but now you actually get kicked out church if you practice polygamy. And this change conveniently happened around that time, when the Supreme Court, um, condemned the case Mormons vs. United States. Ahem, let's see. So there is more something I could do to answer that there were problems, but um, how Is it...time?
Oh, I have more.
approximately 30 seconds.
Okay, give me mine.
30 seconds. Good. Therefore, Jesus changed history to a new meaning.
One thing use this as an illustration. Other It's a matter of saying that this translation, and completely to spoil it. I I couldn't find it anywhere, and, please provide give me a quote if find where Joseph is Smith or anyone from people in their first 50 years the existence of the Church Jesus Christ Saints In the last days he said, that Joseph's Translation Smith or Book Abraham is a comment or something other than actual translation, whom he gave it to.
Good. Perfectly. Perfectly.
Thank you very much, Daniel.
Now, uh, now we reached the real parts of what people considered a debate actually. You know, when you say, "I'm leaving for debates, people think they will big debates, and then to people like these introductions and these, uh, refutation. It the most interesting part.
This is the best. Okay, this is it.
is called cross-examination.
Every speaker going to...May 10 minutes to question another. Um, starting from Devin, because he claims, and he will be the first to question Daniel. Before we let's start, here are a few cross rules interrogation during this round. A person who asks a question, will be called "guess" ", who asks", and the person, which corresponds, will be called a witness. The one who asks can to put only question. Imagine to myself as a lawyer, who interrogates a witness on the spot for witnesses.
The one who asks, not must pronounce speeches or quotes arguments during cross-examination.
The only exception is case where a witness asks for clarification, because he really is doesn't understand what it's about he is asked, or just trying to be clumsy Be -which of the options possible. In such a case the one who asks, maybe briefly reformulate question. Also the witness can to answer as considers it necessary, in any language that he is talking. If he is fascinated by the gift of languages, so be it.
The witness cannot to force to strict "yes" or "no" answers No". Therefore we do not we will demand monosyllabic answers. Witness can also put clarifying question, if he really doesn't understands what he is talking about they ask, and the witness maybe...even answer rhetorical question, but the one who asks, no must comply this is rhetorical question. This is for so that the witness does not took time during poll. Importantly to note that not is considered rude, if the one who asks, interrupts the witness, if he thinks that on question provided sufficient answer.
So no cuts.
No cuts and posts on Instagram.
Crossover time interrogation is limited, and the one who asks, controls time. Under cross time interrogation of the one who asks, controls time. This means that if you think that your opponent is late or not responds to question, you can respectfully return take your time and move further. I will follow.
in time, and we we will intervene if, um, we will need to did not stray from the course.
Devin will start, and, um, Daniel, if you it is necessary that he repeated the question, um, you can to ask him/her do it with Irish accent.
So, it's clear.
Simply, simply, simply, just to liven up the atmosphere.
Do you know any?
other languages? I want to hear another language. I... I don't know.
Try it.
Good.
I don't know what kind of...You are.
said, but you English.
I was wrong.
about seven times.
Good.
Hey, that sounded good.
Yes, you could me.
to deceive. I You could to deceive me. So, in anyway, uh... Good. IN I am only seven...seven.
words, that's why I I'm rebooting mine.
clock. Your time starts now.
Forward.
Thank you, your honor.
Good. Uh, can they?
two sincere Protestants to reach different conclusions regarding of the same Bible verse?
Uh, can they?
To some extent, yes. I I mean, they can. Absolutely.
Yes.
Good. Do they have Protestants ultimate power to interpret correctly Holy Scripture, not others?
Well, again, when you interpret one question the answer is always correct, but one incorrect, or or there is, or there is none of them correct. Therefore, uh, regarding interpretations, question again boils down to the fact that no, uh, no dad, who tells you, in What to believe and what not to believe believe it if you do you ask.
So how about two then?
Protestants who do not agree, can to agree on that whose interpretation correct, but whose wrong? Yes, it is.
interesting, because we are with you we know you as a person, that adheres the logic of the last days, would you like to spend parallels. And that's why I would said that you also have there is a parallel, how do you you can determine, and I I ask rhetorically. As you might say, um, which Mormons apostles, prophets and elders you should listen? Ahem, because again, it's a kind of choice. AND I heard how many Mormon apologists said that they are not very quickly. You say that there is no way to determine whose interpretation is authoritative?
Hmm, again, returning to Scripture, if it agrees with By scripture, yes. If not, then no.
So, is it necessary baptism for salvation?
Um, yes.
Good.
Baptism of Saints By the Spirit.
Good. What about water baptism? Uh, Water baptism is commandment, but Jesus specifically said, um, what if you, um, this goes into, you know, if you believe in Me, then you have eternal life, John 3:16, very famous poem. So, this is do not enter the commandment about baptism, and there, where is this mentioned, it's about, um, baptism, you know, like Ivan said The Baptist, what is he?
will baptize you By the Holy Spirit and fire.
Okay, so do you know?
that some Protestants interpret this poem so that water Baptism is necessary.
for salvation?
Yes. So, you give interpretation that you baptized in the spirit, then as another points out, no, it says that we also need to be baptized with water He said this to Nicodemus.
So if individual the answer...I think do you think that this related to...they both are biblical, they just both interpret this poem separately. So is there individual responsibility every person interpret this passage from Scripture?
Well, I mean that in the poem you quote in the Gospel from John 3, I believe, that was so, where it is about birth, that What is born of the flesh is flesh, but born From the spirit is spirit. AND then this is compared to that, what...if someone doesn't born of water and spirit, he cannot to enter the Kingdom of God. Again, Parallels with the following with a poem after it they say that it's not about baptism. It's about birth of the flesh, and then birth from the spirit. Therefore, need to be born once, which means to be born twice Unless Peter didn't say that each of you repented and baptized? You have meaning baptism fire?
There was also a commandment about baptism as an act obedience, but not as means of salvation.
So it was optional commandment. Again Okay, you take a look.
on a specific the example we we have in Scripture after after Jesus died from the robber on cross, no having been baptized. It it's clear that this is... How do you know that he is?
Not yet baptized?
He was...if he was Jewish, where are you from?
you know he wasn't one of those who was baptized by John Baptist, and then did not follow Christ after he said that he you need to eat it skin and drink it blood, and all these people offended and stopped following behind him?
Well, it was new.
baptism. Uh, if you you speak well, this was the baptism of John... that it was a baptism repentance, so that believe in Jesus, which will be after him, and about this actually it says in Acts.
So these are two different baptism.
Good. But you said, that there is no dad, there is no... It seems like you're saying that there is no authority to to claim that this correct interpretation. You say if I Do I understand correctly?
you say that mine interpretation more biblical, so mine answer more authoritative. Hmm, I have meaning that it is obvious, that we all have some the filter through which we we look and think, that he is correct. I I will say that if someone can prove it to me Scripture, where am I?
I'm wrong, I'll change it.
your point of view on something.
Hey, Joseph Smith said the same thing.
Uh, so if you... I would like to talk.
with him, by the way.
Is it worth looking for?
The Holy Spirit in interpreted scriptures?
Yes.
How can you know whether the spirit guides you understanding the passage from of this Scripture, not your natural thoughts? Hmm, it was given several different things.
Compare the Scriptures with Scripture. Hmm, it is always depends on of what came before it. And that is why we are given church as a way to have...deterrence and counterweights, that, obviously, any an unworthy person can to be unsure of yourself, believe in all kinds of crazy things. Hmm, but is you can do all this, not following Holy Spirit? If you follow the church and Bible, ignoring spirit.
Repeat this again. I also. I I ask how the Holy Spirit helps in interpretation of the Holy Letters? It sounds like this, as if you were talking about comparing it with The Bible and what the church says, but I I ask how the spirit guides your understanding Holy Scripture?
Yes. So, God's spirit gives you understanding.
Again, if you move on from that to be a non-Christian who reads the Bible, before to be Christian and reading the Bible, that is opens your eyes to understanding the truth.
As if this is the difference between day and night. Earlier it was a dead book.
Now she is coming to life.
So those who don't have spirit, they cannot understand the Bible.
They can understand the Bible, and God can give them, obviously, revival and understanding that they could actually understand this. Hmm, but this is not the same as a reborn person.
The one who was born from the spirit of God, born from...above.
How is this different?
This is completely different.
view.
Well, one is the spirit of God.
outside. The other is God's spirit from within.
But how is this?
manifests itself in different? For example, how can you determine difference? Hmm, well, about whether you have God's spirit or not.
Yes.
Hmm, well, I would say, look at the First the epistle of John, which tells about how looks real believer. It says there about what we recently reviewed this is at a Bible study, and we talked about what's new is something on like new creation in Christ.
Everything passes. Everything becomes new. So, now your view of things is where your wishes, you know, to Christ, if God's the spirit is rebuking you, it there will be something that will make you or run away and to hide, or repent and believe. While after you became a believer, now this matches yours spirit, sometimes you can to go astray, but this takes you back to ground level.
So those who have strayed from way and not... they returned never had a spirit.
Well, they came out of- were among us, because were not among us. I I don't understand yours.
answers.
Uh, that's a Bible verse.
. It says, uh, they came out from among us, because we don't really were among us. For if they were from- between us, then would remain. So I I will say that this is a poem, who speaks about it.
Good. So you say, what if they leave, they never had Holy Spirit.
Uh, it seems like this indicates this. Now it says, can someone to lose theirs salvation? This is a separate topic for discussion.
But what the Holy One says The letter that if you you will know by their By the fruits you will know their. Uh, obviously that everyone can put the same act on external actions, but internal or yours the heart is directed towards God, are you selfish and want do what you want, are you trying to deserve one's due salvation through their good deeds and good behavior?
Good. So it seems that there is still some gray zone, especially when it is about loss your salvation.
Oh, is that a question?
Is that correct? Uh, when it comes to can you lose my salvation, I can to say what he says Scripture. Again yes, regarding these topics, as I already said, I don't I adhere to Calvinism or Armenianism. I I adhere to what The Bible says that He is the creator of the eternal salvation for all, who is obedient to Him.
It says that, um, if you love Me, then you will keep My commandments. But there it is also about, What are you making excuses for?
not by deeds.
Excuse yourself by their deeds before people, as stated in The Epistles of James. But before God He knows your hearts.
Do you know the poem where It is said that Abraham was acquitted with their good deeds?
Is it in the Message?
Jacob?
I don't know.
Uh, if you can give me a passage, I I can find it and see the context.
Uh, that sounds... familiar?
Uh, well, that's what, I think I had in mind in the Message Jacob.
Good. Well, and again yes, in context, this there was a difference between justification in the eyes others and for us and justification in the eyes God.
One minute, Devon.
One minute.
Good. So, it seems that you...saying that mine interpretation will be correct, because it more biblical. However, I can point to the same biblical excerpt and make conclusion from another value. So, who is this?
doing as we can to know whose is more authoritative if we we can say, that they both biblical? For example, third heaven or baptism for the dead.
These are various random things. I think not.
random, but we we can both to say, "Oh, my biblical. "Therefore, there is no way to say who is authoritative. So, is it is there any way to you authoritative tell me that I am not Christian?
Um, so first of all, I I would like to pay your attention to the fact that it's not easy accident. Um, that, what is written in the passage from Deuteronomy, where it even talks about how to judge whether it is false prophet or not. There It is said that the one who will not listen to My words and will speak to My by name, and if it prophet, or one who dare to speak word in My name, and I did not order him to speak, the one who will speak by name other gods, that the prophet himself will die. AND if you say in to your heart, as we we learn that the word the prophet is such that it It is said when the prophet speaks by name Gentlemen, if this word... Good. Yes. These are our 10 minutes. Listen to me.
punished for it. Good.
Those were quick 10 minutes, dude.
Yes, it was a quick 10 minutes.
You didn't call.
cowbell or something like that?
You know, I was, uh, no, I was..." just on playing in the background countdown old school TV.
You know what I mean?
I say?
So, uh, okay. Uh, Now is your time, friend.
Go out onto the field, you know, and uh use each a centimeter of this smooth accent on your benefit.
This smooth accent.
Good. Uh, come on.
Let's see. So, according to first, as you know, which, uh, apostles, prophets and elders, uh, taught the true things, uh, what are you must follow?
Therefore, since the time of Joseph Smith, yes, we have a structure. One of them is because the living prophet more important than dead prophet.
So, if alive the prophet gives revelation that explains something that said the dead prophet, living prophet has more power.
In addition, there is a passage in the first chapter Doctrine and Covenants, where It is said: "Does it speak Jesus, or My own by voice, or by voice My servants, it's the same thing."
, which, as I understand it, is unanimously all the apostles." "AND only, uh, prophets also said that only the prophet can share new revelation, not an apostle, no one else.
So, this must be prophet. And for this to happen doctrine, all the apostles must ratify. So, unless it's not was ratified, this may be true or false, but it's true not a doctrine. Or Does this answer your question?
question?
Yes. Good. So, if a prophet, let's say, hypothetically, he will say, what, uh, you have to, uh that God, and all this becomes so that all the apostles or elders sign this. So, in you are a prophet who says again to practice polygamy. Or would you practice polygamy?
Yes. If this is a voice Gentlemen, then yes.
Good.
But I wouldn't do it.
this voluntarily.
Where are the limits of this?
For example, what would you wouldn't have done it if the prophet said this to do, and would be unity in management?
If the prophet and all the apostles said to do something, then, uh- Well, then the rule is this, what would this order Jesus Christ. But if it were so."
If it were something on like... if...is there any limit?
For example, could we you go...I don't know... to search the entire state California, because they you don't like, or if it happened, or if you...if you betrayed their own wife...would it be acceptable if prophets and apostles they said that this normally... in this hypothetical situations prophet and all the apostles tell me to search the state California...uh, well, then this wouldn't happen... I think that this would never have happened.
But hypothetically I I know I wouldn't do that.
did.
Good. So, there is a limit of what you will do.
Right. So, then you really don't believe in this because if there is a limit to what you will do it, then is it some moment when this person can get off off the rails, but you just they said that you must listen, especially the living, Yes? So, if everyone the apostles said this, then they are not They'll say, "Hey, I want to, so that you betray your wife" or "stole these things in California". "OK. So, you you claim that this won't happen, but if this happened, you would didn't they do this, or not Yes? It's something like that if God came down and told you to ruin California, or Would you do that?
This is a rhetorical question, which one you don't need to answer.
Yes. Uh, that's true. Uh, and then, uh...Okay.
So, as for that Joseph Smith is translator, right?
could you please provide I need at least one...uh, and you said that Joseph's translation Smith was inspired comment. Not could you please provide I need at least one.
a quote or something from someone before 1890, where it would be said that Joseph Smith not only didn't translate, he did some inspired comment.
I can find for you quote.
Okay, then we Let's get back to this.
Uh, come on.
Let's see. So, how about...Oh, sorry.
Tell me... Uh, let's...uh, and on things, or Do you use JST?
Joseph's translation Smith?
Do you love use it as its main The Bible?
No, I use Protestant The Bible as your own the main Bible.
Which one do you think opinion, there is..." more precisely to biblical or to original text, or to the real one text?
Well, there is a question about of what is said text and what it is means. And, uh, I I'm trying to understand.
what the text means.
For example, I think that JST is more accurate in the book The output, where it is said that, uh, the pharaoh turned to stone your heart against Gentlemen, while in my Protestant The Bible says that The Lord turned to stone the heart of the pharaoh.
Good. So can you Can you give me a list?
of what exactly was in original translation, is it remains on discretion of individuals in the church so that they decided what was original in Bible, if it was translated right? So the church does not claim that was original writing, original manuscript.
So what happened?
translated right? Can you Can you give me some?
list of this? Is he available?
Oh, okay. Of course.
So the things that were translated right, these are things, on which we can refer to In the Gospels or in design. But, for example, full list, not just recommendations, but whether there is a complete list somewhere, where I can say: " Hey, this is..." The Bible, you you can you can trust this, because she conveys all important precious truths, who were supposed to be there. « Good. You ask whether there is a list of all the excerpts, which are translated right.
Right.
Uh, no.
Good. Uh, did you know?
you that Joseph Smith in to your diary wrote that, um, we extremely tired due to large volume affairs. Today we completing the translation Scriptures, for which we express gratitude to our to the heavenly father.
Do you know what he is?
Did he say that?
No.
Good. So, this too concerned Joseph's translation Smith. Uh, what are you?
Do you think? Uh, come on.
Let's see. Or Do you think that, um, or Do you think that Joseph Smith actually could to translate as we are thinking about translation today?
I think the word " translate" was used in such a way that we now this word is not we use. I saw when he I translated things.
I think that was it.
Revelation. So, is it really he translated from something, What was on the coppers?
plates, or on copper plates just as a decoration?
Uh, so he doesn't even gold plates. So they were, they weren't even there, so they were on the table that sat next to him.
He didn't even look.
on them in the process translation.
Right. But is he received revelation, because was prophetic translator, prophetic seer?
So, is it God who gave it?
him an interpretation and translation of what was on these plates, was it something that was absolutely not related to these plates?
Because again, remember why they remember why they wrote this, why they wrote on plates ancient Egyptian in the reformed language?
Isn't it because it could contain so a lot of content on a short distance?
Yes, this part true.
Good. And then, how do you Do you think it was?
real translation?
Hmm, not related with a script.
Um, well, I'm not sure, as it relates to the topic debates, but I think what were he like frank words as they were the author in mind. Um, he, translating, writes what he felt presence and emotions of the original authors, when translated their words.
Good. And for me, how non-saint of the last days, do I have anything, what is worth talking about worry if I I will keep going.
the way I'm going?
Um, yes. Well, this depends on What is your goal?
Um, my goal— to glorify God. AND if you accept this sincerely, like, um, you know, as a person who is not part of the church Latter-day Saints, if your goal is— to praise God, I I think you want to be one with Him as well, as Jesus is one with Him.
Um, so you're saying, that there is something negative, except that you don't you will reach the highest equal?
Yes. So, if your the goal is to glorify God and become one with The Father as well as the Son one with the Father, then you will have to accept Jesus Christ and all the grace that He maybe you offer, especially, um, in covenants and priesthood, which are only in this church, at least on this time. Did he lie?
Joseph Smith on his ability translate any documents?
No.
Good. Did he lie?
Joseph Smith, um, if Joseph Smith was a false prophet, or the church of the Saints suffers The Last Days of Collapse?
Um, well, if he was, if The Book of Mormon, if The Book of Mormon, if Pearl of the Great Awards, Teaching and Testaments, if he was wrong about these things and about what Is the Bible distorted?
Latter-day Saint faith Days wrong?
So no, he should to be a false prophet, and these things don't prove false prophet. Unless there is no false prophet by definition false prophet, that is prophecy on behalf of God, which is not true?
No, the Bible never does not teach this.
Good. So how about false accuser?
Yes. Or a false seer, or pseudo-transgender, if he were something from this, would it be it would be illegal if Was he a fraud?
would do it illegal Saints The Last Days, is it?
regardless of Joseph Smith?
Well, I'm thinking about Jonah, when he said that Nineveh will be destroyed after 40 days, and it wasn't like that.
This was wrong.
prophecy, but we all we still consider it prophet.
Hmm, was that conditional?
promise? I am not anywhere.
I see in the Bible, where it is given condition. Was there Is she potential?
Potentially conditional.
Yes.
Well, it must have been him.
would be, uh, like that gives the real prophecy.
Good. Yes. And then, uh- Well, let's see.
. You mentioned, uh, so... if, uh, if faith does a lot charitable causes for people, is this possible to consider genuine faith only because these things...sorry, in You have 10 seconds, Okay, sorry if the church has charitable works... no, no, if, if religion has charitable causes, such as all the good things that does Mormon church...Church Latter-day Saints...is this possible?
legitimize this religion? This means, what is this...this is beautiful tree. That's all it is.
means.
Okay, great. This is yours.
time. Uh-huh. Good. Beautiful work, guys. Beautiful work. Uh, how?
fundamental Californian, I am concerned about everyone these conversations about looting California, you know, just me... just You know, I just... I feel that I have verify.
He said no. He said no.
I have to check.
studio and make sure that here No crowd appeared.
So, uh, okay. Thank you.
Thank you very much, guys. And now, um, we have reached the end cross-examination.
Uh, we'll move on to the most interesting part, namely, uh, superchat.
Superchat.
So, uh, there are a few like this, guys. If in There are some of you, uh, questions you have want to put, uh, in particular, Devin or Daniel, please.
write to Devon or Daniel, so that I know, Who should they be addressed to? I I will do my best.
to be as close as possible fair in this question. If you have something stupid or it's pointless to say, you can just miss. If in There is something insightful about you.
, I will try to raise you at the beginning. AND, I think we'll start with, uh- uh, I don't even want to to talk about time. We let's just spend several superchats here. Let's see how will go.
Okay, cool. So, uh if you haven't already liked the stream, Guys, please.
make sure you liked the stream, and uh- Well, we'll try.
read a couple superchats. here. We are not we will spend too much time, but let's try, uh, read a few here.
So, uh, one of the the first superchats, which we have here, was, er, John Buck 4808 says: "In Acts 19, St. Paul calls people, who did not know about Holy Spirit, with their classmates, what does their non-trinitarians, but still Christians." "Um, good. Some thoughts from about this? I I suppose that was it.
addressed to Daniel.
Some thoughts on this What's the reason, Daniel?
Listen to me again.
Um, he said that in Acts 19 Saint Paul calls people, who did not know about Holy Spirit, with their students, what makes them non-trinitarians, but still Christians. Um, therefore I believe that in in this context it was about, uh, he found several students. We specifically it is not said what they are students. Um, could be disciples of John, because I I know they knew.
about the baptism of John.
Um, so I don't think so.
it is clear that we we can finally to say from this text, uh, what did he say commentator.
Okay, great.
Following. It's like, uh, It is written there that Mormon something. I can't read this.
Devon, wanted to give him the opportunity answer this?
Oh, no. I'm fed up, What we just do Anything, Devon?
Good, Who is Devon?
No, I'm just kidding. IN there is something about you that you you mean, Devin? Sorry, brother.
Just wanted to... Be honest. Uh, I think, uh- uh, yeah, I don't think so they knew what it was Trinity. Okay, cool.
Steeply. By the way, this is it's really hard to be moderator, because you you really want to intervene, but you just can't, because it not so.
You did a good job.
I just have to say to you, brother, that I I just want to to intervene. But in anyway, here it is we are starting another one superchat. He says: " It's like a football game.
a team that always has one game. AT, maybe we will have to skip this because I don't "I understand the context." THERE ARE -er, Sean Leighton says: “ Free, free, Flidian ". You read the Book Mormon? You say that it contradicts Bibles, but not you give none specifics. I know that this is a true book. Uh-huh, I read part of her, let's see.
Actually, I have I don't have mine with me.
copy." There are several things that I am sure emphasized, and if you previously asked about, which I had problems, I have them a lot, but I have to take this is later. In particular, I I mean honestly, this very racist book. Just saying.
You read what's there written. Um, and then I read, uh, read the whole book Abraham, all a precious pearl, and started with doctrines and covenants. Uh, I would invited you when you read and think, maybe it's racism, to think about who is racist when you come across these parts where they speak about skin and race.
I would like to to talk about it another time.
Okay, cool. Perfectly.
Then we have a bunch superchats where people just sent us stickers and emojis.
For example, uh, thumbs up from Freedom Stands USA. Well, it seems to be free Floridaidian and, er, Freedom Stands USA is already simple best friends. AND then, uh, I'm going read a few here.
Who is this ancient one?
Daniel, book Queens. Good, interesting question. Who such an old man the other day in Daniel? And who is that?
who is sitting on throne in the book Announcements, according to JS, which I believe is abbreviation of Joseph Smith?
Not Ivan Stalin or Joseph Stalin. Not Joseph Stalin.
No, Ivan Stalin, his younger brother who founded a rock band in 1972. Uh, so Joseph Smith taught, that Adam is the Old One the other day, and, um, I don't sure about which one the section says, but I I assume it's God, who sits on throne. Who else would do this?
could have been, you know?
Okay, cool. Perfectly.
Can I answer?
on this?
Yes, give it. Let's.
Um, I believe in this one.
excerpt from Daniel, very, very good the passage where it is said, and Jesus refers to him when you know: behold, you will see the Son Human, coming on the clouds with a big glory. Um, this is concerned the Son Human, which was approaching The old days, and there it is said that he will receive worship and that he, hmm, will receive adoration. Therefore I do not I think that in context it makes sense with Adam.
Okay, cool. And then uh, I'll choose another one here. Read the last one. Uh, if you you are missing something burning, what are you you mean better throw it there. I, uh, I'm teaching this. Uh, seller's room.
Good. Thank you very much for generous superchat. says : "At what moment", and I I think this is, uh, addressed to Daniel: " At what point do we we become for you Samaritans, not "unfaithful?"
Like, what is the line between Samaritans?
I think he says like Mormons, not Democrats. I know that you are great, I know you are great, you know, a constant.
Yes. In any case uh, I'm trying to understand what question because Samaritans again were those who did not kept the commandments God, you know, mixing with sinful nations around them. Uh, me trying...me difficult to answer this is a question, but I can to say that I can a little to paraphrase if you want. Yes, I'm just suggesting.
a little idea, just because I I think they are reflect, uh, not trope, and the phrase that I often asked to your show, uh: where parable of the good samaritan ok shows that, uh, you know, even though they believed wrongly, were guilty of wrong thinking, wrong worship, wrong origin, wrong everything, the final parable about good Christian behavior was not parable of the good Jewish priest or good Levite; it was parable of the good Samaritan. So often in my show I say, in worst case, or We are not good.
Samaritans.
Right? So I I think he is saying that common refrain Mormons—this is not christian rings, as if Mormons are unfaithful.
When, uh, we we turn into Samaritans from the unbelievers?
Got it. OK.
An interesting way say. So I would said there are many people in any religious spectrum, which can do
Related Videos
0:33
Philosophy
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
27:53
Philosophy
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
1:18
Philosophy
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
18:20
Philosophy
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
1:26:44
Philosophy
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
47:07
Philosophy
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
1:03:26
Philosophy
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
1:37:10
Philosophy
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
9:05
Artificial Intelligence
2.4 BILLION Records Got Leaked...
DeepHumor
15K views•2026-07-22
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
19:32
Business
Should I buy a Sawmill?
essentialcraftsman
29K views•2026-07-22
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23