Brian Holdsworth Says, "My God Can Beat Up Your Mormon God!" lol

0:06 All right. All right. All right. Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the Ward Radio live stream. I am your host Carden Ellis and today I am joined in the studio by none other than Quu L KJ Hershey, Luke Hansen, and back by popular demand. Uh here he is, Jacob Hansen from Thoughtful Faith. And today we are going to be responding to a recent video uh that Luke here just put in the Discord. I am loving this and I'm so looking forward to this. Luke, we're going to be responding to one >> something I've never seen done before. >> Brian Holzsworth who basically is claiming now that his god can beat up our god and uh it's a showdown. So, we're gonna see how this

0:54 showdown goes and uh react to some of the claims made in the showdown. Now, full disclosure, I agreed to do this video, Luke, because you said you have not seen a video that's gotten you this riled in a long. What were your words again? >> I kind of got pissed watching this video. Usually, I don't get riled up by this stuff, but this tact in particular that he takes just it takes me off kind of. And I actually watched it with my family because I was with my family up more north in central California and my mom was like, "He's just stupid. He's just Maybe I shouldn't say that." >> And you're the nice guy that Sam Shimoon likes. >> Uh Sam Shimoon has no opinion of me, but >> No. No. He's actually mentioned you by name in the video with Latter Day.

1:39 >> Oh, he did. >> Yeah. Yeah. He said, >> "I didn't know this." >> Oh, yeah. You're the only one either. >> Oh, yeah. Uh when I interviewed Latter-day Logic and also um Braden Moffett, Gospel Guardian, they did the debate with Sam Schmoon, who famously has turned Catholic or converted Catholic, >> and he made a joke in the middle. He said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, who who's the guys that I don't like? Who's the one that I do like? Who's the And it was you, Luke Hansen, by name." >> So, um >> yeah, how am I on top of this and you're not on top of this? You worship at the feet of these Catholic apologists. >> You know what I'm saying? You follow Joe Heshmire more than you follow me and I'm your friend. >> No more. But you weren't in the Sam Shimoon thing. >> Okay. All I know is guys, >> you know, when I had my five minute debate with Sam Shimon years ago, um to

2:26 this day, I still get some of his fans will angrily message me in broken English [laughter] and they'll be like some guy in Bosnia like why did you run Shimoon this debate TO 20? WHY DID [laughter] YOU RUN AWAY? AND I'M LIKE WHAT? It is the most it will like be a post where I'm like, "Hey, it's so so happy to be floating down the river. Such a beautiful day this summer." In the comment section, you run away. Shoon debate 2019. >> There's a difference between insufferable and running away. But anyway, okay. We've got we've got Luke Hansen with us here and uh Jacob Hansen. Uh Luke spells his last name right. Jacob still hasn't figured it out yet. >> And it's the Danes. It's the Danes. It's actually no, I should be more compatriate with your spelling because I'm Danish, too. I take it all back.

3:13 Luke, you spell it wrong. Anyway, we're >> we're going to be reacting to uh this little bit of wisdom from Brian Holdzsworth. Full disclosure is a strong word. Misinformation, [laughter] >> put a banner on it. >> I've never seen this. Okay, so uh full disclosure is I have never seen this. Qu's never seen this. KJ's never seen this, >> but apparently Luke has seen it and he says he's never gotten more pissed about anything in in a long time. >> And sure, >> and I also understand I'm judging before he says anything, >> but I for years have disliked Brian Holdzsworth. [laughter] >> I for years. And the reason it's not because of anything he believes. It's

3:59 when he talks I don't feel like he's talking to an audience. It sounds like he really likes to hear himself talk. He just gets there, says 20 minutes to say nothing and expound on an idea he didn't already sell us on and he expounds on that and expounds on that and expounds on that. It's just like, man, I know this guy loves hearing himself talk. That's why I can't I can't His showmanship bothers me. >> That's all I've got to say. >> Okay. All right. >> Great cinematography though. Beautifully lit videos. >> Yeah. Yeah, him and Hey, look. Hey, all the book burners do like it looks like Matt Frad studio right there. All right. >> He looks like he teaches at Hogwarts. >> Yeah. Awesome. So, anyway. All right. We're going to jump right in. >> So, well, and a little bit more

4:44 background on Brian Holdsworth. I went to the Trent Horn conference that he had in March, I believe. April >> in April. And Brian Holdsworth gave a talk and he started this talk by saying, "Yeah, you know, I was I was watching this debate. I won't mention his name just to respect him, but I was watching this debate that Joe Heshmire had recently and I was like, how is this guy not embarrassed by his performance in this debate? Like, how does this Mormon not see how he's getting just creamed by Joe Heshmire right now? Obviously referring to Jacob Hansen's apostasy debate with him. Uh, so he's definitely coming in from like a certain point of view that he thought that Joe Heshmire just dominated Jacob Hansen in that debate. And I wanted to tell people about invited Brian to have I wanted to

5:31 have a conversation with Brian. Um actually to be honest it's so funny a lot of these apologists are like this where it's like they'll make a video. Brian has one on vague spirituality kind of vague spiritualism that's super good. One of the best I've ever seen. And then like he'll talk about us and it's just like are like did what? Like did your brain just fall out? Like what what is going on here? >> Yep. And uh I think his worst one though, I'm trying to find it was where he said that uh it's not always wrong to burn heretics alive. Yes, >> that was that was one of his more interesting >> Oh, that was him. I forgot about that one. Yeah, that was crazy.

6:18 >> Okay, well, um All right. That's insane, but I absolutely love it. Anyway, we're going to dive right in and uh just start attacking this thing. Uh, no pun intended, watching this thing and reacting to this thing. Let's see what our boy Brian Hollesworth has to say. The video is titled The Mormon God Problem. All right. And uh, we're just going to go from here. Any any guesses before we start? Any guesses? >> I can't make a guess. Did he learn the lesson of not using the God makers like Matt Frad did? >> Oh, >> or of using the >> Why are you so prophetic? >> Oh, don't tell me >> why, Carter. Really? >> Just play it. >> Okay. All right. We'll just play. We'll

7:04 just play. Hold on. Here we go. Here we go. >> Something I've never seen done before is a straightup showdown head-to-head stats comparison between God according to Nyine or classical Christianity and God according TO THE >> THERE IT IS. So on the one hand you have >> There it [screaming] is. He did it. He did it. Dude, Brian Holdsworth, you are an ignorant religious bigot. If you cannot do No, I'm sorry. If you cannot do apologetics against Judaism without quoting mine comp, I'm sorry. You are not You lost the plot. If you can't go three seconds. >> Okay, quick. 30 seconds into a debunking without me

7:51 defenders. >> Okay, maybe not mine cough, but let's say protocols of the elders of Zion. Okay, card it look. I'm no Brian. I just got done saying I don't like his content, >> but I don't think he's using this picture to say this is Mormon God. >> HE LITERALLY JUST SAID it's going to be a showdown. >> You think they worship a triangle? He doesn't actually think the triune God is a triangle image. Usually what what people are refle what people's minds think. They think we're in Mormon cartoon Mormon God Trinity triangle. He's not saying we worship you know Ian M. >> If you were trying to dunk on Muslims and you purposely you did a disrespectful version of Muhammad knowing that it's offensive to them and so on and so forth. Yeah. Okay. Come on.

8:37 Come on. >> No. But you can't even show Muhammad. >> Okay. Hold on. For those of you that are unaware, what did the international society of what was it? Judeo Christians and Christians say about >> Jews and Christians. This image. >> Okay, but >> we just have to let him go quickly. >> Okay, we'll let him go. But we're just I'm so >> Before he says anything, MORMON GOD VERSUS YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS BIGOT. >> I AM NOT [screaming] UNHINGED. >> MY [laughter] GOD. >> PROTOCOLS. The elders of Zion would be a better example. But here it is. The National Conference of Christians and Jews stated that the film The God Makers was unfair, untruthful, and sensationalized. They noted it used half-truths and faulty generations and warned the movie relied on fear and

9:22 prejudice. I believe they specifically specifically said that it was so sensationalized that it made normal people. It taught them to fear their Mormon friends and neighbors. This was rightly rightly condemned as a just bad piece of just religious bigotry. Like it's not apologetics. It's beyond pmics. It's a hit piece made by an ex-member that is out of the realm. It's out of the Overton window by football fields. Brian, so um >> would it be all right for me to try to express that in different words? >> Yes, it would be all right. Okay. Um, Brian, hi. Um, you have started your video by including an image. There we

10:10 go. You've started your video by including an image from The God Makers, which is atrocious on multiple levels. Not your inclusion of it, but the film. And so, while we recognize you haven't presented your argument yet, if you're trying to reach Latter-day Saints, um, showing a picture of something that bad as the introduction to your argument is one of the poorest decisions you could make strategically. >> How's that? >> And, Jacob, what's the equivalent we said was of the God makers that you having gone to Catholic school, you said was a book that you felt was kind of as resoundingly understood to just be full of misinformation. It was about the nuns getting impregnated. >> I I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head. There's a book in the 1830s, interestingly enough, all

10:56 about like the secrets about nuns and priests and like this horrible thing that they're all doing and all this like expose on what really happens in the Catholic Church. >> Okay, I'm actually looking it up right now. It was Maria Monk. Actually, it was more than one. >> No, it was the awful disclosures of Maria Monk. >> Remember that book? And it was all about how supposedly the Catholic Church, the horror of the convent life exposed. And it was about how supposedly the Catholic Church was building uh tunnels underneath convents so that the the priests could have sex with the nuns and then abort the babies and all this other crazy stuff. Uh look, [laughter] >> I'm not saying they did that. I'm just saying the Catholic Church has done some wacky

11:43 wild stuff. So I mean >> Yeah. Well, either way, it's kind of resoundingly believed that Maria Monk or the uh what's it called? The expose of Maria Monk is disinformative. You probably shouldn't quote it if you want to be taken seriously amongst Catholics. Equally, uh it has been resoundingly agreed upon by non-members of our faith that the God maker god makers is wildly untruthful. And Brian, you're a big boy. This has been mentioned often enough by your opponents that I question the motivation behind any Catholic apologist on YouTube that is still using this. Uh because it can't be used as a source of information. If not, what is the motivation? To me, I'm guessing bigotry, but I could be wrong. So, we'll continue

12:29 here. We'll go to the beginning. We'll we'll let him speak again from the beginning. Something I've never seen done before is a straightup showdown head-to-head stats comparison between God according to nyine or classical Christianity and God according to the LDS church aka Mormonism. So on the one hand you have the blessed trinity eternal uncreated uncaused unmoved alive in a dynamic relationship of the exchange of self in in keras in love and on the other you have heavenly father who is an exalted man. So I'd like to explore the question of of of which is greater and and which is more consistent. >> Okay, how do we feel about this thus far? So, he's immediately off base

13:16 because he's saying, "Let's let's take this and compare it to philosophy rather than to the revealed word of God and see which one comes out on top." Well, if your god was derived from philosophy rather than from the revealed word of God, uh then a phil a philosophy comparison is going to be closer to your version of God. That doesn't mean it's true. It just means that the assumptions that you went into it with are going to naturally lead to the conclusion that you want. And it's a problem with the assumptions, not with the test that you're going to run with it. >> And and we'll get into we'll get into some of that. Keep going. I want to as we as he lays out his argument into it, we'll get into what he means by the greatest because that's where a lot of

14:01 Latter-day Saints see I think a lot of Latterday Saints don't actually understand what he's saying because he doesn't do a good job of explaining >> No, he doesn't. like the entire framework that they bring to the table, like they just aren't even thinking in the same paradigm as you and I. So, let's >> also the the beginning of this it it kind it kind of seems like if you ask Stan Lee to write a theological dissertation, it it's like, hey, Stan Lee, inventor of Marvel, what do you think about religion? HE'S LIKE, WELL, UH, this god, what if he fought this guy and they were going at it? Who's tougher? It's like it's not [laughter] you it reduces all of Christianity into like Greek style myth. It's just kind of a silly thing to do. >> Yeah. I just give him credit for losing weight, dude. That's hard to do. You

14:47 know, I've gained 10 pounds since our last debunking of him. He's lost 10, so good on him, bro. Good on him. Uh let's just keep playing or do you want me to jump ahead to a time stamp? >> Uh did you have more stuff to say, Jacob? I would just say keep keep playing because I think in the beginning he starts to add at least the the framing of the conversation which I think is important. >> Okay, here we go with what the word god entails. [music] >> So in the 11th century St. Anelm famously constructed what has now become known as his onlogical argument which people still wrestle with today and and and try to construct their own version of. He opened his argument with a definition of God that that should

15:32 resonate with most people. [snorts] He called God that which nothing greater can be conceived >> which implies >> okay >> stop there. That is that's the critical moment. >> Yep. >> No, that is not the reasonable definition that we're all just going to go with. And he there there's sort of this idea of okay now I want to play a little bit of the devil's advocate though. Okay. If you're going to talk about God, God has to be the greatest, right? If something is greater than God, then that is not God. That's what the basic assumption here is. Okay? And there's a certain degree to which that's an understandable thing to say. But what they're going to do is then utilize arisatilian metaphysics

16:19 and these idea of contingency. Cardon in the discord. I think this is going to be the most critical thing to understand. Okay. It was in a recent video of mine. I have a a thing between infinite regress and an uncaused cause. Okay. >> Okay. Cool. It's on the screen right now. >> Okay. Cool. This is essential to understand because this is the entire way that the classical theistic world thinks about God. They have this idea that you can't have an infinite regress of causes. And therefore, there must be something at the bottom, the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, the the thing that that is not affected by anything else. It can't be affected by anything

17:06 else. Because if it's affected by something else, then it is not ultimate. When they say the greatest being, this is where all the Latter-day Saints are getting this wrong. He's not saying greatest in like your own subjective moral qualities. This is called the ontological argument because it's arguing from existence. It's saying that the existence of one thing depends on another thing. So God is the fundamental thing, the thing at the beginning of the chain, the uncaused cause. And so when he's talking about greatest, he's talking about it not in terms of like moral goodness. He's talking about it in

17:51 terms of fundamentality. What is what is more fundamental in the chain? The thing that is the greatest is the thing that doesn't have to rely on anything else for its existence. Okay. So that is >> isn't this all basically just Aristotle's old prime mover? >> That's exactly what it is. That's why it's called why you guys why why why why is this called classical theism classical classical view of God this is all from the classical theistic tradition now there's a side to which we have to give the devil his due if that's a brilliant way you have no revelation you have nothing you're just using reason to try and argue to something that is ultimate will that ultimate thing is the cause of all the other things that exist

18:37 >> yeah because by the time the ecumenical council started happening and Jesus Christ was born. Hadn't all the Greek philosophers and the Roman philosophers kind of moved toward this idea of God being a prime mover? Meaning, if I'm not mistaken, they looked at the motion of the universe and they looked at like when I throw this and I hit that and that knocks over. That the knocking over of the second thing was caused by the throwing of the first thing, which was actually caused by me tossing it. And you know like and they basically surmised that all [clears throat] motion in the universe ultimately came from a prime mover and that that prime mover had to be deity. Right. >> Correct. And that and that same idea if that's an analogy is the idea that some

19:23 things rely on something else for its existence. Like you wouldn't be here if it wasn't for your parents. So your parents are greater than you in terms of ontology. Okay. Of existence. like what is the thing that is at the at the root of everything. So that is the basis of classical theism. So what the ecumenical councils were the ecumenical councils were an attempt to to try and make classical theism these ideas merge with the Bible. >> Yeah. They want they want to sit. I mean, just like Protestantism has gone woke right now and we got to have female clergy for the first time in 2,000 years and all of a sudden we got to have gay priests baptizing our kids for the first

20:09 time in 2,000 years and like all of theology suddenly had to kind of ecumenically counsel itself into another change of woke. uh they just dec adopted classical Greek prime mover um theology when it was de laode in the ancient near east right and and let's not forget what Brian himself said he said that the formulation or the definition of god given which was that of which no greater can be conceived was formulated by anom in the 11th century almost closer to us today than to Jesus Christ, like at the midpoint between us and Christ. So, the definition of God,

20:56 the proper definition of God did not exist in Christianity was not given in the Bible until 1,000 years later is what Brian Holdsworth just said. [laughter] >> Yeah. And the funny part is they just they they operate with so much arrogance. >> Exactly. where they're just like like when we watch uh Cliff Connectley where he's doing that debate supposedly with the the the Muslim, right? And the Muslim simply asked, he says, "Can you name anybody in the Bible that was trinitarian?" He's like, "Absolutely. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John." And it's like, okay, the whole basis of your idea that God the father is the largest of anything that can it we're talking 11th century philosophy here, guys. None of

21:41 the early Christian view Christians viewed God in the way that the modern trinitarian formulation does. What's the proof? None of them can actually quote it correctly without committing heresy. I saw freaking Jacob Hansen do a debate with God logic where he basically just recited partialism in front of me and I'm not even a trinitarian. I'M LIKE WHOA stepping on landmines. You know they can't explain it to you in the hallway without using modalism. You know why? Because it can't be explained through scripture the way that you want to explain it without committing a heresy which makes you think maybe maybe your model's wrong. So anyway, we're gonna let him go back. Let's let's let's finish reacting to Brian here. I just keep playing. Is that what you guys are saying? >> I I forget specifically where we

22:26 stopped. So, yeah, we can >> open his argument with a definition of God that that should resonate with most people. He called God that which >> by the way, just just look at that wording should resonate with most people. He might as well have just said like most serious. >> This is well just just so you know, this is the whole issue. He's starting by defining what God is >> basically >> and saying God is that of which there no greater can be conceived. And by greater he means fundamental. What he's saying is we're defining God as the the beginning of the chain of existence, the the uncaused cause. He just that is the starting assumption. Well, even he's

23:12 defining it as what most reasonable pe people in my club would believe. >> Exactly. >> This is the contract. >> We're just going to define God this way and then if your God doesn't meet it, then your God is ridiculous. >> Okay, here we go. >> Opened his argument with a definition of God that that should resonate with most people. He called God that which nothing greater can be conceived. Which implies that if you can conceive of something greater, then whatever you're conceiving of is not God. God by definition should be the greatest thing imaginable. >> By whose definition? By who? >> Period. No, no, no. I'm going to and this is this is where I don't want people to lose it because you're right. It can seem to us like by by whose definition of greatness? I want to steal man them though. What he means by greatest isn't moral quality. No,

23:59 >> he means fundamentality in the chain of being. >> Yep. >> In the in the in the causal chain that the the diagram that I showed you when he talks what he's saying is if you can think of anything else that is more fundamental than that thing. For instance, he would say Luke, you can't be God because you came in the causal chain. You're not the start of the causal chain. That's also why God has to be one because you can only have one thing that is the cause of all the other things in their model. So you have to understand that all of this is coming the entire framework the entire lens they bring to the table is Greek arisatilian metaphysics in relation to causation

24:44 and existence. Mhm. Now, I'm I'm going to talk about something that I don't have any expertise in and don't actually know what I'm talking about. Just briefly, >> yeah, I actually don't have much experience with [laughter] that. >> Just one person >> didn't need to bother with that too much. So, um my train of thought is and it's back. All right. So, Joseph Lel, who's LDS philosophy on YouTube, he's pursuing a PhD um somewhere fancy in England. >> Yale. >> Yale. Oh, in Yale, not in England, but he has that accent. Is um he did a video addressing the ontological argument and it kind of went over my head, but what he said is that the ontological argument

25:30 relies on the P5 system, the rules of the P5 system uh for ontology. And I don't know what that means, but what he says is in the P5 system, if you're thinking about possible worlds and you have a table and let's say that we have two tables in these two possible worlds and one table is a one atom difference. We subtracted one atom between the two tables. Can we call them the same table? If you say yes, okay, then why don't we repeat that and repeat that and repeat that and repeat that and somewhere along the chain you will say that it is now no longer the same table. The problem is at some point in there um it it flips over but there's no reason to assign a certain point to it because if the gap

26:16 between a one atom difference is acceptable then that means and to call it the same table then that means that no gap along that chain from calling it the same table to not calling it the same table. No one atom gap is going to be a reason to switch from calling it the same table to calling it not the same table anymore. And I don't know why that makes the P5 system not work anymore, but he says it does, which is what the onlogical argument relies upon to work. >> I am. >> So that is that is something that people can go and take and research into more, which is what I want to also do. But it's not as if there's not arguments against the ontological arguments. >> Think how think how much brain power Christian apologetics is wasting of

27:03 American minds. Like there's people that could be curing cancer. Like if you can understand the gobbledegook of whatever you just explained to understand [laughter] >> it's called your goble. >> If you just if you can decipher that gobbledegook, you could translate the Rosetta Stone uh with one half your brain while the other half of your brain is curing cancer. It is a net loss trinitarian studies on our society if that is what is required. >> Well, they might argue that we don't understand it. And the reality is is that a lot of times people hide in mystery. And I I've >> they can't explain it without committing one of their own heresies. We'll get to that later. >> That's why I simplify it to a certain degree. That's why when you actually simplify it, you realize it all comes to back to that diagram of causation. And

27:51 greater things are earlier in the chain. And so what is the greatest thing? Well, the greatest thing is the thing at the beginning of the chain. So remember when he's talking about greatness, >> he's not using the word in the way that you're thinking. >> Yeah. like loving or saves us from our sins or anything. That's not what is making God great in his system that he's referring to. >> What's interesting though is like if you when you take a step back and you examine the fact that humans can philosophize on what they think is the ultimate authority and what makes God God, but that doesn't actually have any bearing on what makes God God or who God is. So let's say you're some foreigner visiting, you know, America. You're you grew up on an excluded island. you have no concept of the rest of the world and you come here and they say who is the

28:36 supreme ruler of this land and you say oh it's a president of the United States and they go to Washington DC and they meet the president and they go surely this isn't the this isn't the leader I can I can conceive of something greater that doesn't mean the president of the United States is not the president of the United States just because in your philosophizing you've assumed oh the greatest leader must be at the top of the top building and and he must be like this and this And to give to give the devil his due to >> who's the devil, Brian [laughter] or >> to and to mention the president to to steal man? >> There is a thing where people ask, okay, well, what do you mean by God? Like if you're going out trying to find God, let's take all of our religious presuppositions out of it. What are you talking about? And for some people, they'll say, well, I'm talking about the

29:22 greatest possible conceivable thing. Well, what does that mean? Well, what do we mean by greatness? And what they do is then they define greatness as well something isn't great if it depends on something else. That thing that it depends on is greater than it. Right? And so from that simple logic right there you just carry that through and that's the way they're reasoning. But again as Luke pointed out it all comes down to what are you presupposing? >> Yeah. >> What are the assumption? You've brought that definition to the table. Now Latter Day Saints take a very different approach. Ours is, hey, you know that guy Jesus, he rose from the dead. Why don't we just go ask him? And what you find is what he actually said, despite all of the councils trying their best

30:09 desperately to reconcile what he said with this classical notion of God, they don't square. You can't have classical theism and the Bible. They don't match. They're not describing the same God because they're describing a God who is personal, a God who enters into humanity, a God who uh can take on human form like legitimately. Um so the word that we're using when we talk about God, that's a huge thing in all of theology. The very first thing you have to do is say, "What the heck are we talking about? You're using that word God. What do you mean by it?" >> And Latter Day Saints are like, "We mean our father in heaven that Jesus was talking about." And they're like, "We're talking about the metaphysical ground of all existence that Aristotle was talking about." And we're like, "Okay, we're not

30:55 talking about the same thing, guys." >> We we'll often get accused of changing words. Oh, the Mormons, they just redefine words. In reality, Christians are the ones that do this more because >> with God. >> Exactly. Because there because um Catholics, for example, they have a kind of worship. It's a different category. There's dullia, there's hyperdoulia, there's all these things. Um but they will give a form of worship to Mary to the other saints etc. But what what makes those people great? What makes them worthy of worship? The use of their agency in their life um in the pursuit of the highest good and that's what makes them worthy of worship. Whereas on what makes God who also is a rational agent just like them worthy of worship is his onlogical categorization. So

31:41 they're calling both of them great. They're saying that both of them are due worship, but the categorizations and the reasons that they have for doing so with each of them are are completely different. Same word for completely different definitions. >> And the problem is God can't be a rational agent in a in a in their system because to make choices to to actually have agency means that you could do wrong. If you don't have the capacity to actually do wrong, then you then then then you you you're not an agent and God can't have the capacity to do wrong in their in their worldview because then he'd be something less than than perfect. So >> yet at the same time they say the the way in which we are created in God's

32:28 image is that we are given a rational mind. >> Exactly. It's, you know, it's it's incoherence on incoherence. And anyway, let's let's >> I just like calling him a bigot because they use the god makers. >> It's a lot simpler than trying to break down the P5 system of ontology. >> You know, protocols, the elders of Zion, God makers, you know what I'm saying? Like, yeah, let's just I'm we're sticking with that. Stick with that. >> Can I chime in for just one second? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Well, it seems Sorry, I haven't said a lot in this video yet. Yeah, >> it seems to me like he's trying to gauge >> these two different conceptualizations of God based off of the metrics used to create one of those definitions. Like >> correct, >> how could how could the Mormon god ever possibly hope to compete in this race or this competition where the rules have been set up by one of the participants

33:14 in that race? >> Yeah. It's like I drew a picture and how could the picture you draw ever possibly come close to being the picture that I drew? >> Wait, wait, wait. Who the hell are you? KJ just walking into my studio and getting a oh perfect analogy out of Jacob and like a big head knob for like I've worked years. He's never done that for me. >> You know what I'm saying? >> I told you I was super proud of you earlier today, Carden. >> That's just beginner's luck. KJ, you're on thin ice. >> No, I'm just kidding. [laughter] Just kidding. >> He's leaving tomorrow anyway. >> Oh, that's true. That's true. >> I'll just scream big at the rest of the video. >> So, let's There we go. There we uh let's go to 5:30. 5 minutes 30 seconds. >> So, here we go. 5 minutes and 30 seconds in. We've got uh Oh, whoops. I dropped

33:59 Oh, I just closed out. So, I'm gonna have to pull back up. I know that's it was amateur hour. I'm just have to pull back up the >> This is the part of the video where my blood pressure started to rise a little bit. >> Really? >> Yeah. We're going to see a little bit more God makers action going on. Just fair warning, trigger warning. >> Okay. >> Need a parental advisory warning. And if you have other time I've never >> Oops, Jacob. Keep going. >> Okay, so here we go. >> All right, we're good. >> We are back up and running. Okay, so 5 minutes and how many seconds? >> 5 minutes 30 seconds. >> 5 minutes and 30 seconds. Should we just play it until 5 minutes and 30 seconds or no? >> I don't know. I don't know how far we went into it. >> We're actually not that far. So here we go. We'll just play it. >> Greater reality. He's a contingent being among many. What about the God of

34:44 classical Christianity? Does he fall prey to the same same level of scrutiny? And in case you find this maybe a trivial way of comparing the two religions, this this does actually matter because we're describing our object of worship. Do you worship God as he is as God should be known as defined or as he's been constructed by human imagination? >> You mean as he's known and defined since the 11th century when y'all voted on it? By the way, um, if you vote in the 11th century on the drastically changed nature of God and declare those that don't believe in your 11th century version as heretics, what were the first 1,000 years of Christians?

35:30 What were the first 1,000 years of Christians? >> Not to mention all the Jews, of which Jesus was also a member. >> Yes, >> a member. Yeah, it's a club. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, we get what you were saying. So he continues >> and if it's the latter, then it's idolatry. If it's the former, then then it's the devotion you owe to the supreme being. So probably the first place to start here would be by giving an introduction to our our two contenders. So let's start with heavenly father, the god of the LDS church. He is said to be the the spiritual father of all mankind and and we are his children. He has a tangible body of flesh and bone, though his is immortal and perfected.

36:17 >> He's separate and more supreme than than Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. He's also the creator of all things. Although, >> by the way, this is like everything God logic said at the debate, right? >> I mean, am I wrong so far? >> We're good. >> Okay, we're good. All right. By the way, this is everything God logic said about the Trinitarian God. >> We we do have to stop very briefly and appreciate we complained about the pictures he was using before, but I kind of like the fact that he's like, "So my god." And he puts up a picture of a diagram and he's like, "But meanwhile the LDS god." And he puts up a picture of like an exalted man [laughter] like he's referred to as >> I love how he's dogging on like yeah that Mormon god with his, you know, a man with an exalted body just like Jesus

37:05 >> who is God. [laughter] >> This guy his pronouns are probably he him. >> Keep going because he talks more about the body thing and we can get into it cuz that was the time that I gave. >> Everyone remember Jesus is an exalted man with a glorified body and then listen to how he rags on that. >> It's even worse. >> Also though it doesn't help the criticism that you know when we criticize >> cradle Christians and say you guys worship an idea to put up a diagram which is literally actually an idea. Yeah. [laughter] >> Look at this chart of ideas that I worship. Yeah, I'll take the guy on the cloud. [laughter] Is this a like? Duh. And by the way, most Christians in America, probably in the world, when they think of God, they

37:51 think of the LDS concept of God. They think of the God that revealed himself to Joseph Smith. You go to your average Christian in a church and grab them and describe God. They're not going to give you this this Westminster confession, you know, spaghetti arrows here, here, a compass on the weather app. They're going to tell you the God that appeared to Joseph Smith because we can naturally conceptually that's what we know God to be. It's only until you know man about to sound like Gordon B. Hinckley. It's, you know, [laughter] >> put up one hand and kind of wave it like this. >> Oh yeah, that's right. >> It's only till >> these theologians and paid ministers come and they try to make you believe in worship concepts and ideas.

38:38 Now, that's fine. I mean, you can still follow Jesus and do that, but I actually feel like this guy's video helps us more if you're looking at it objectively. And if you're especially if you're if you're a believer who isn't interested in the debate, like 90% of Christians are not interested in any kind of religious debate, they're just going to be like, "Yeah, this redheaded guy is off. I I the Mormons this I believe what the Mormons believe." >> Yeah. So he continues, >> they mean something specific by that that might surprise you that we'll get into he's said to be omnisient and omnipotent, all knowing and all powerful, but again they >> Yeah. Okay. >> They kind of mean something different by that. He was once as we are and became

39:23 exalted. And his purpose for us is to become exalted like he is the God. >> By the way, >> I the diagram is up again. He's just explaining He's just explaining the ministry of Jesus. >> Yeah. >> Like the writings of Paul, it's almost as though Brian uh he commanded us or hoped that we would become co-articipants in his glory as Paul said and as early Christians believed like apotheiois theosis. >> What's ironic? Here's one of the funny things. He doesn't realize he's making the exact same arguments that the Greek philosophers made against the early Christians. See, this is the thing. The early the whole thing was like, you guys are talking about this Jesus guy as though he's God. God can't have a body.

40:09 Like, are you kidding me? and and God, you know, so so he's he that's that's like the whole thing is that Jesus >> the the the the philosophers of that time began to remember they were Greeks. They had a Greek conception of God. And so what they did is they went to the Christians and said, "Your conception of God doesn't match with classical theism." And the Christians instead of being like, "Well, classical theism is stupid." What with the a lot of the early Christian apologists Justin Martyr and the others what they tried to do was they tried to figure out well how do we still acknowledge the philosophical arguments but create like our own version of it that will uh you know that that's Christian right we can make classical

40:55 theism seem Christian and that is what literally the entire credle Christian tradition is built on because it was built on the creeds that had that purpose. The purpose of the creeds was to reconcile classical theism with the with Jesus and it just doesn't work. >> Okay, I just got to read a couple of super chats here so we don't fall behind again. Uh you only say that, Jacob, as Braden Bell points out because that's the new Christian rebrand that they don't worship a triangle. It's them that's rebranding, not just you filthy ocelerites. Then big B777 says, "This is where the trope comes from of a married Mormon woman is going to be part of a herm of concubines. Why is pregnant for all eternity throwing up from mourning sickness etc. etc. etc."

41:40 >> Referring to the God makers. Yeah. Thank you very much for your super chat. Big Bionia says, "If Creedle God is so tough, why is he incapable or afraid to create beings that can become like he is? Doesn't sound stronger to me." That's very interesting. uh professor I can't read it here but says classical theism may correctly realize consciousness is uncreated but asserts there's one undivided mind rather than infinite intelligences also incorrectly assumes matter is contingent um okay >> yeah it does just assume matter is contingent that it has to go back to one singularity essentially >> oh yeah in that other thing x neilo that was invented thousands of years later >> 200ish >> uh >> yeah Just just aware all of this.

42:27 >> Here's the thing. Take that whole unmoved mover situation >> where everything has to its existence is predicated on something else's existence. What happens when everything always existed? >> Um >> that entire model falls apart. The entire model of classical theism is based on contingent existence and sort of this idea of creation from nothing from some original unccreated source and then everything else exists contingently. Whereas our view is is that everything at its fundamental level has existed forever but we uh have been organized they've existed in different forms essentially is the way that we would view it but that fundamentally as intelligences whatever the kind of the fundamental of the universe is of of all

43:15 existence that is uh that has always existed. >> Okay, cool. All right, here we go. Uh last five super chats here super fast. Uh, Greg Hawkins says, "Second time tuning to the show. These are the types of conversations I enjoy listening to. From your friendly community of Christ listener based >> giving up the Book of Mormon and saying that it wasn't historical anymore, not based, but everything else about it totally based." >> I heard that was a rumor that they didn't do that. >> Uh, >> because on their website it still says they believe in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine of Covenants. I think it was I I just read the the phrasiology of by the way the community of Christ is that that's RLDS change the community of Christ 90s

44:00 >> split >> and then >> community of Christ kind of >> which is the one the lion >> share okay whatever it is we're not going to litigate the entomology of your faith my friend we're just going to say we're here and we're happy that you're here and you're a stud founded by Joseph Smith III >> I mean you can't look you can't dislike them if they're founded by the son of Joseph Okay. Um, as long as they behave, you're right. You can't. >> And also, they're so non-controversial. One's a lot. You never heard you never heard anyone be like, "Yeah, these freaking Community of Christ guys were really bothering me." >> Look, I'm just riled up from Brian still. So, it's getting spilling over on everybody else, you know. >> It's true. It's true. Also, he's a he No, not it's too it's too juvenile. I'm not making the joke. Go on, Carter. >> So, Gork says, "Wrong God. What's the

44:46 right one?" The trinity. What's that? Careful. That's heresy. [laughter] >> Yeah. That's true. >> And then Gork continues to say, uh, the Trinity is the only final exam where asking the professor to explain the material gets you sent to hell. That is funny, Gork. And it's also >> like when um I was talking with James White back in the day and Jeff Durban and and all those guys, they're obsessed with the potter and the clay, right? They're obsessed with the potter and the clay and they use it as a thought-terminating cliche. So when you ask them, hey, what's the point of doing anything? If salvation is not my choice, if I have no choice in the matter, if I have no action in the matter, it's all predetermined. They say the potter has

45:32 control over the clay. The clay cannot ask those questions to the potter. It's like, yeah, James, I'm asking you, you know, you're not God. >> Yeah. >> It it it's like this thought terminating cliche they use to get you not to, you know, observe the obvious. And it's the same thing. Explain to me the trinity. Well, I can't explain it to you. You should just understand it if you're saved. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I like the phrase the thought terminating. What did you call it? >> Thought terminating cliche. >> It's very popular in socially progressive circles. And I highly recommend it. >> Oh, what I call it is the art of shutupery. >> That's is responses designed to get you to >> simply tell you that you shouldn't talk about it rather than respond to what was actually said. Yeah. >> Okay. last super chat is divine simplicity destroys the atonement.

46:19 >> We actually will get into that and it is very true I believe. >> Okay, he keeps going then. So, >> and I I didn't want to caveat this because I know it can be annoying if there are nonLatterday saints. Maybe Brian's listening. Uh that this stuff can be very annoying to listen to people kind of arrogantly, stridently putting your faith on >> seconds without quoting the God makers. >> Putting up a picture of it. Yes. Um, but if Brian especially wants to chat, like I'm open to it. Jacob's already said he's open to it. Like we are okay having dialogue. We just want to talk about you here. >> We will fly you here, put you in a hotel and have you debate our best behaved one. >> Should I should I play Brian for a moment and give the strongest sort of

47:04 issue and see what you guys do? >> Only if I get to debate you. Yeah, >> sure. Well, let's finish. So, so here's here's the I'm going to give the let me give the stronger version of this because it'll it'll play into the other things that he says. >> Here's the thing. All right. So, what's fundamental? >> Reality, I would say. >> Okay. So, reality is fundamental. Okay. So, God is contingent on reality in some way. >> If reality didn't exist, God wouldn't exist. Yes. >> Okay. So, so here's here's the the thing though. God exists. You're saying uh that he is dependent on something like eternal law in your theology, correct? >> Yes. It's not defined really in any way, shape, or form, but we don't believe

47:50 that he's the Plutonian version of God. Yes. >> Okay. So, so this is this is where this goes. If there's something that God is subject to, then how can you call him God? because he is ultimately dependent on >> those other things. Those things be more fundamental >> because you are assuming the 1,000 years later definition of God that God is the greatest conceivable being that um also is reliant upon a system of understanding and some assumptions that we wouldn't even hold in the first place necessarily. And Blake, >> how could you say that God is all How could you say though that God is all powerful if something out there like eternal law is more powerful than God?

48:36 >> Eternal law is not an agent in the world. It is simply the fabric of reality. And to be powerful, you have to ha you have to have agency in the world. You have to be able to enact that power in some way through a conscious mind. >> Professor would at least be the same thing I would say. >> Cardon has something to say. >> Okay. I I've heard this argument this back and forth before and the only thing that bothers me about it is like it nothing could kill Jesus Christ yet he chose to die. Nothing like George Washington famously the greatest political act of history when King George heard that George Washington had taken the Continental Army and returned the powers of the army and the emergency powers vested in him back to the people. He said that is the single greatest political act I've ever

49:23 heard of in my life. >> Like George Washington could have been the god of North America. And instead he returned it back to the people. Couldn't God himself even if he were all power powerful have create created these parameters if not just to show the example in the same way that he showed the example of baptism with John the Baptist. >> That essentially is the Catholic argument. In fact, Joe Heshmire has a video where he explains why Jesus actually didn't have to die on the cross. There's nothing mandating that. It it was for for the atonement. >> He's the scapegoat of Leviticus that was sacrificed by the Levitical priest. >> Yeah. But that's the people that's

50:08 purely God. I don't want to caricature their theology, but to an extent, it's almost that like God had to act out his love for us >> in order for us to get it. So, there wasn't anything actually necessary in the atonement and suffering and death of Jesus Christ. >> All right? >> It was simply a vehicle that God could use to communicate his saving grace to us. >> Very big, very painful object lesson. >> Yeah. a very big, very painful object lesson. That's funny. >> All right, let's get back to the video here in the super chat. >> Yeah, let's go to like 5:30. There's no super chats. >> The uh I'm just I'm just getting through really fast. Rest of his video super quick to the It's almost at 5.

50:55 >> God of classical Christianity can be described using many of the same terms and concepts. But classical Christians mean something different by many of those same concepts and terms. So he is pure spirit and immaterial rather than flesh and bone. He is unccreated and uncaused. He has no limitation in his why why do they keep saying he's all pure spirit and immaterial when like 90% of the interactions that God has with men in scripture from Moses to Abraham to all of his children >> to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. which is the entire point of his ministry is that he rises with a physical body and they call him God yet

51:41 he has a physical body. Like I don't understand how you can walk away from >> well and it's like Jesus is God but when we're talking about God we mean God God not Jesus God. >> Well it's okay for >> but don't worry Jesus is still God and he has no parts because remember this the I was going to do it earlier but I'll just do it now. God cannot and Brian is going to try to address this. God cannot have parts. It can't be one being that is composed of different things that is the supreme thing that everything goes back to. It has to be a pure singularity. Like it can't all go back to one molecule for example because that still has atoms inside of it which have subatomic particles inside of them. It

52:27 all has to go back to one absolute single thing. >> Let me let me make the analogy real quick on that. The analogy is a Lego house. Remember, the house is a thing, but that thing isn't fundamental because if you didn't have the individual Legos, you wouldn't have the house, which means the house is dependent on the Legos. Just ask, is something dependent on anything? If it's dependent on anything in their world, it can't be God. So therefore, if you follow that logic, you can't have a Lego house. You'd have to have one Lego. And and obviously like Legos can break down into subatomic particles, but we're not going that far. I'm just saying there's one like God has to be one thing that is just one thing.

53:13 Nothing else. >> And this is absolute divine simplicity. That is the technical term. >> Escape it in classical theism. It's an it is a brilliant philosophical move because if you want to say dependency of any kind negates something from being the original uncaused cause which is philosophically super sound then yeah God has to be one thing and what's really wild is is what he says about it. Do you do you have the part where he talks about that because I think we should segue into that. >> Oh yeah totally. I started talking about it before we played it. starting at 5:30. [sighs] Should get us there. >> Okay, here we go. >> We'll let him talk for a while. >> If you're a pure spirit who is also all

53:58 powerful, then you can just become corporeal. You can take on a corporeal form like flesh and bone whenever you want. But if you're actually corporeal by nature, you can't take a spiritual form whenever you want. Otherwise, you'd actually just be a spiritual being who happened to have been assuming a physical form. So if the God of Mormonism really is corporeal by nature, that's what defines him and not just >> No, it doesn't say that anywhere. Doctrine of Covenant says 130 says >> you almost did it. >> God, >> you should have just added two more nos. >> No, no, no, no, no, >> no. [laughter] >> God has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man, but it is perfected unlike. >> By the way, how how funny is it though

54:44 that like They'll they'll rant and rave about God being all powerful. Maybe all powerful lends him the ability to do both. These are the people that try and cram dual natures down our throats. >> And he's about to do that. But he's so he's trying to compare and he when when they talk about God for us, they're only talking about the father. But when they talk about God for them, they're talking about the whole trinity. Because with the whole Jesus thing, it's like, well, if he's a spirit, he can take it on. But then if it's his essential property to have a body, it's like it doesn't say that. It just says in Doctrine of Covenants 13 that God has not that God is defined as but has a body of flesh and bones tangible. >> Go real real quickly. He he addresses this part. Go to 9:24.

55:31 That's where he he gets into this idea of the that you have the Trinity, but you don't have any parts, though. >> Okay, here we go. >> Which which is really wild. I was going to Yeah, I was going to start at 8:30 to let him >> do that. Go to 8:30. Yeah, that one's That's where he gets >> Well, we'll try to contain ourselves until he explains the relationships in the >> Yeah, let's let go. Let's go till at least like 10 minutes. So, it's almost like a minute 30. Let's let him go. Then you're saying that his existence is prior to the composition of his body. But that raises the question of what he was before he assembled his body, which would have to be an incorporeal form or a pure spirit. But again, Mormonism denies uh that that he's a spirit and and so we're left with another

56:16 >> We believe they're all intelligences. That's the same thing. He's just wrong. Keep going. >> Yep. >> He's a supreme being, but he's also caused by the material world and by some efficient cause that organizes that matter into his form, which would have to be more supreme than he is. The God of classical Christianity, however, is >> God. >> What? What' you say? >> Oh, I was just saying that he always throws up diagrams of his graph is back. Oh, by the way, if you know it's in 13th, 14th, or like this one, 19th century stained glass, then you know it's true. >> You know, it's like when Dave Chappelle always makes fun of white people and he's like, you know, well then you all read it in Newsweek and then you knew it was true. You know, it's like, oh yeah,

57:02 well then now you saw it in stained glass uh in, you know, a 1928 Catholic chapel somewhere. Now, now you know it's true. So, uh, >> we'll attempt to let him continue. >> Yeah. >> Not limited by a body. All three persons are pure spirit and therefore unlimited in being and don't require any other causes like material or >> keep saying things that are false. I have to I have to address it. Not all three persons are pure spirit. All three one of those persons has a freaking glorified body and his name's Jesus Christ and he's in heaven right now which is a place that allows for physical bodies. It's the apostles creed. >> Like what are you talking about? They're pure spirit. And by the way, we believe that we are ultimately fundamentally spirit. Like what are you talking about? >> See, Jacob, it's okay to believe that onethird of God has a body, but it's not

57:49 okay to believe that twothirds of God has a body. >> And but and you believe all of that and that God doesn't have any part, >> which is what he's about to get into. >> Exactly. Let's get into it. It's so unbelievably just like, are you kidding me? >> Okay. So based on that just that comparison, the trinity is automatically greater. And and let me pause here uh hopefully quickly to address a possible objection that that many people have. You might say if the Trinity is three persons, then how can you say your God isn't composed of parts? That's clearly three different parts. But that's not what the doctrine of the Trinity asserts. The distinction between the three persons isn't in being three separate parts, but a distinction of their relation to one another.

58:36 >> I have a question about I have to scream about a question to scream about. >> Me too, Jacob. Question for you. What is the minimum number of things you can have in order to have a relationship? >> Two. >> One thing relates to another thing. You can't have a relationship between the same thing with itself. >> You can't. >> You can't. You're changing the definition of words. This is what I'm talking about. They just came up with a new word. It's not a part. It's a relationship. What the heck does that mean? It's a new definition of relationship that doesn't apply in any other circumstance ever. >> Correct. >> Okay. Well, that's not the word relationship then. That's a different word. >> And remember, you have three persons, but those three persons are actually one thing. This is the thing again. Remember the one Lego piece,

59:22 >> but the persons aren't the one thing are just different relations within the Lego piece, but that Lego piece doesn't actually have part. This is just unbelievably nuts. You can't talk. And not only that, what if there's any meaningful distinction between them? Is there any meaningful distinction between the father and the son? >> Yeah, he just explained it. It's the relationship. >> One has a body according to them. >> Yeah. >> But how could you how could you in any way say that you have a distinct there. There can't be any distinction because a distinction creates a separate thing. It's like a it's not a pure Lego. It's like a Lego piece that is made up of stuff. That's the problem. You can't have one part of your God have a body

1:00:09 and then another part not. You can't have any distinctions at all between the father, son, and holy spirit because how can you have a meaningful distinction in something that is truly just one thing? >> Mhm. >> You can't make distinction. That's what it means to be one thing. It means you don't have any distinctions. >> And and it has to be once again that singularity kind of one thing. Not a one Lego house kind of one thing. A singularity kind of one thing. >> The one the one Lego the one Lego that can't be divided into anything else. >> Mhm. Okay cool. >> I mean, it's wild. >> Yeah. >> Like, for him to say this so confidently. >> They And they do. They just I just sometimes I'm just like you just the level of just like I'm just going to say this and not realize like that I'm just

1:00:54 not making any sense and then like laugh at us. It's like what are you talking about? >> Okay, here we go. He continues, >> unbegotten. The son is eternally begotten of the father and the holy spirit eternally proceeds from the father and the son. Their relation of origin is what distinguishes them from one another. It isn't three different parts grafted together. It's the same divine nature subsisting in three persons who are only distinct through their relationship. >> Dude, it's just this weird. >> But there's a distinction then. There are different things within the trinity. what >> that have a distinction meaning they are not the same >> between each other. So it can't it can't be one thing and it's it's not that

1:01:40 we're not only saying I want to make sure people understand this we're not only saying that the trinity is self-contradictory. We're not just saying that we're saying that trinity contradicts the very basis on philosoph of philosophy on which the trinity was developed from. It doesn't work with its own assumptions. Not merely with its own. It doesn't work with its own definitions. >> Dude, I just I never want to hear these guys complaining about transgender theory ever again. Cuz like all transgender theory really is is like a bunch of philosophers in the 1960s and a bunch of academics in the 1960s for political and social motivations all of a sudden just changed a couple of

1:02:26 synonyms and invented new terms that were never believed up until the 1960s. and you had money, Jean Paul Sache or however you however you pronounce his name and all the academics of the 60s say wait a second no gender is not just a synonym for sex put in biological medical terms. It just means how you manifest. And they gave it this new gobbledygook definition in order to like create this split, this philosophical split that was never understood as the meaning of that word for the first 2,000 years of that word, right? And it's super convenient though now because now you can have transgender

1:03:13 theory, you can be justified in surgeries, medications, uh political advancements, so on and so forth, right? Well, it's like don't get angry at that movement, you know, and and and get angry when people don't call God a he when you voted to make him years after he manifest in ecumenical councils full of just nameless philosophers and priests that none of them can name. Okay, there was hundreds at a time, you know, where you just like all of a sudden say, "Well, no, he's got two dual natures. That's how we That's how we put this square peg in that circular hole." Is I just I I just feel like I can't

1:03:59 >> It is It's that same tactic, Cardon. It's you don't And there's I forget who he I think it was James Lindsay said something that when he's talking about like woke people invent all this new language and and like gender is a social construct and that he says they don't use language to communicate they use it to obfuscate >> they're using language to hide things to

…