Truth Unites - Protestant vs. Mormon Dialogue on the Trinity (Jacob Hansen and Gavin Ortlund)

Episode Date: May 12, 2025

Gavin Ortlund and Jacob Hansen discuss Protestant and Mormon perspectives on the Trinity. Jacob's channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thoughtfulfaith2020Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

So first and foremost is that we don't believe any of us are created. Because we reject creation ex nihilo, we don't believe anything was created. Is the Trinity something that a person must believe in order to be saved? Would you agree our perspectives about God are very different? Maybe even down to the roots? Yes, but I wonder how much that matters. Hey, everyone. Welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites.

I am here with Jacob Hanson. are going to have a discussion about the Trinity. I'll share a little more about where we're going, what we're doing. But first, Jacob, thanks for taking the time. How are you doing today? Doing well. Thanks for having me, Gavin. Yeah, I'm looking forward to a conversation. Just so people will understand the goal here. This is not a formal debate. This is not a super intense, supercharged conversation. The goal is just, I think we could say just clarity, just exploring our are differences. And if we leave in an hour or an hour and a half or however long we take, with a greater clarity about our respective views than everybody has won. And neither side is trying

to denounce the other here. That's not what we're doing. Also, this, of course, will not be exhaustive. I mean, this is a massive topic. We could go down all different kinds of avenues. I'm kind of curious, since the outline that I sent you is so bare bones, what rabbit trails we will get off on, because I'm sure that we will at some point. But maybe we could start by just introducing ourselves a little bit in terms of our basic faith orientation, you know, whatever you'd like to share. I'll start by just saying, I'm a Christian, my view of the Trinity is pretty much a classical view. So I do affirm things like divine simplicity, things like that, and classical theism. If that comes up, we want to go there.

Though that's always a little bit. I don't know if I drank enough coffee this morning for those, We'll see. But yeah, so my basic beliefs are there is a God who has made this world. He created us in his image. We have sinned against him, and we need his forgiveness. The God is a Trinity, the Father of the Son, the Spirit. We'll get into that. The second member of the Godhead, the Son of God, became a man. He became incarnate. That's Jesus Christ. He lived, he died, he rose, so that we could be reconciled to God. And that happens when we respond to the gospel. with faith and repentance. So I always love to just give a, like a literally like a 30 second overview of what my faith is kind of at the very front end and then we'll kind of, you know, hone down in further as we go. So that's a little bit of my broad perspective where I'm coming from. And let me kick it over to you and just say, what would you like to say to introduce yourself or your faith? Yeah. So my name is Jacob Hanson. I'm a Latter-day Saint,

also known as Mormons. That's kind of the nickname that that we colloquially are known by. And what do we believe? Fundamentally, we, so we would consider ourselves Christian, depending on how people define that term, they can quibble over that and we can talk about that. Actually, I have a quote here from one of our church leaders that I think kind of sums up kind of what we believe, right? Well, first off, I guess before the quote, the idea is that we are live in a fallen world and that we are in need of salvation, that God is the creator of the universe, and we don't believe in creation ex nihilo, which is another kind of big rabbit trail to get down, but we believe that we are in a fallen world in need of salvation and that Jesus Christ

is the only means by which salvation can be attained. This is what the church leader says. I think he sums it up as well. He says, when we bring people into the church, we are not baptizing them into the Church of Man. We are not baptizing them into the church of happy families or the tabernacle choir. When we bring people into the church, we baptize them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost. In doing so, we are leading them back to the presence of the Father through the ministry, atonement, and grace of his son, with the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to this goal. We must always keep uppermost in our minds, this preeminence of the Godhead as both the means and end as we undertake the work of salvation.

And so our basic belief is very, very similar to yours in a certain sense and that we believe that it is through the Lord Jesus Christ that we can be saved and be reconciled to God and inherit all that God wishes to give us. So that's kind of a quick summary of it. Okay, great. Well, and so starting off, you were gracious. to be willing to focus on the Trinity in this discussion, primarily at my request, in that I love learning about Mormonism, but I don't know a ton about Mormonism. I'm still somewhat new. It's not

an area of active research for me, so I don't really try to do dialogues in areas that I'm not very knowledgeable in. I'm just glad that you're actually having a conversation with us instead of just talking about us with other people, because that's generally the way it goes is that people, I always say people love to talk about Latter-day Saints, but a lot of times they don't talk to us, so I appreciate this. Right, and that's my, I think it's great for us to talk. So there's a happy balance there

between two extremes of no discussion versus trying to have a discussion about things I don't know enough about. And that's where we'll have a discussion and we'll keep it on the Trinity, though we can stray off into other things as well. But that'll be an area where we can just explore where our differences are and so forth.

I think we talked about maybe doing some discussion on how important is the Trinity, so sort of triaging this, and then also on basically is the Trinity true? And what does it mean? And how do we evaluate that and so forth? So, boy, the questions I sent you, the first thing for us to talk about is kind of intense. So, you know, just to dive right into it, is this a first-rank issue? maybe starting with the importance of this. I do see it. So I'll explain where I'm coming from on this,

and then I'll kick it over to you, and you can share your thoughts. So I think the Trinity is sort of essential or foundational for setting boundary markers of Christianity. And when I say that, boy, you know, it's not coming from a place of wanting to be nasty or something like that. It's just coming from a place of wanting to follow the truth. as best as I can, that that seems to me to be what is the case.

And that's where we can just talk this through. And I want to hear your thoughts about this. But essentially, trying to boil it down, I would say, it has to do with whom we worship as well as how we worship. So whether or not the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are all eternal, and are all God, and are consubstantial or of the same substance, affects how. how we pray and worship. You know, basically, to boil it down real practically, when I'm talking to Jesus,

am I talking to someone I regard as God and eternal? I know you believe Jesus is God, too, in a different sense. So we'll talk about that. But am I talking to someone who I believe is eternal? And am I talking to someone whom I believe is God in the same sense that the Father is God, and that is to say, consubstantial with the Father? Who am I conceptualizing? So it's kind of like if you go on a date with someone, it's like the identity of your date,

who they are, what their name is, what they look like, what their personality is, that's really important for your relationship. And I would say, you know, the Trinity gets to that point in terms of faith because it's like, who is this God to whom we relate through prayer through worship, through obedience, through every other way. And then the second piece of that is just how we relate to God. The whole question of atonement, how are we reconciled to God? I would say, you know, Anselm is my favorite theologian. One of his books is right over my shoulder right there. And he wrote a book called Why the God Man? And he's, it's basically a commentary on the Council of Calcedon. He's basically saying, why do we need a God man mediator? Why do we need someone? And his basic argument to oversimplify and boil down is, well, only God can pay the debt, but only man needs to pay the debt. So you need someone who's both God and man to pay the debt. And the debt there is the debt of sin and making satisfaction for sin. And some of the money.

aspects of his theory of atonement are kind of unique to his context, but I think the basic argument about a God man is not reducible to that context. So in other words, whether God is a Trinity affects not just whom we worship, but the whole way reconciliation between God and us happens. Now, whoever's right and wrong, it seems to me like it gets down into those really foundational questions. So those are some initial comments of kind of how I'm approaching this and why it's such an important doctrine in my view. Let me pause there, kick it over to you. How does that strike you? Or what would you like to say about how you... I mean, just as a point of clarity, I'm very interested in understanding like what is the, how does this all ultimately cash out in terms of

like why it matters, right? Because like, for example, it does God, if a person doesn't accept or understand the Trinity, or they don't, and they don't embrace this doctrine of the Trinity, like, what is the consequence for them of that? The way that it's oftentimes sort of said to us is like, well, if you don't embrace the Trinity, then you can't be saved and you would go to hell. So is that the view? I mean, is this, is the Trinity something that a person must believe in order to be saved? Okay.

I will, whenever I'm asked a very poignant and direct question, I feel like I owe it to you to give you a direct answer. But let me, I will only preface it with one sentence of saying, in nothing in my heart is against you in saying, you know, you are a terrifically nice. By the way, for viewers, Jacob and I have met each other and we like each other. So this is a good conversation, you know, the desire between a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian, I think we can be friends and we can be co-be. belligerents on issues and we can have positive relationship, be good neighbors, and so on and so forth. But to be, to honor your question, I would say that, yeah, this is a matter of salvation. And now, now let me give some clarifications if I can because I, you know, in saying that, I recognize that's a weighty thing thrown on the table. So first of all, I do make a distinction

between a knowing rejection of something and an imperfect understanding of it. And so God, God knows the heart and he knows the details. And I'm not trying to make an exact pronouncement on this exact person at this exact point. You know, I'm trying to be faithful to the big picture. God knows the details of someone's heart in terms of what's really going on inside them. But in general, yeah, I do see it as first rank. And the reasons are just what I said. This is the whole question of which God do we worship?

It's like you go on a date with someone and it's like, did you go on a date with Sally or Cynthia? And it's like, well, you know, it's kind of important to know which one of the two it is. In the same way, it's kind of it's foundational to relation to God to know, is he the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three and one? And then do we have a mediator that has bridged the divide and brought salvation between God and man who is himself the God man? That's the other piece of the equation that really makes this so foundational. I do appreciate that we'll have a different perspective on this.

and I also feel a little bad that I've, you know, led off with like the most intense question right out of the gate here. No, I think it's the right way to do it. You just get right into it. And I, and frankly, see, and this is one of the things that I have because the doctrine of the Trinity, and I've been really trying to understand it better lately, just because I don't want to, like, straw man it. So if I get something wrong, please let me know. But the Trinity, so far as I can tell, it is not explicitly laid out in scripture. There's a reason that there had to be a lot of conversations that went on after that in the sense of I'm not saying like the scriptures will talk about one God and then they'll also talk about three persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. And so I think you have sort of in the scriptural record the raw data of three persons in one God, right?

Like that, and I would agree with that. Like I don't deny that. The doctrine of the Trinity so far as I can tell is a particular interpretation of what that means. It's an interpretation of the data that exists within scripture. And so in my mind, I guess where I sort of struggle, or I guess sort of the question is, was the doctrine of the Trinity, this interpretation of the three and three persons one God, was that a top rank issue for Jesus? Because in the scriptures, I just don't see in the New Testament where Jesus is, like he didn't go up in the sermon on the mount and give an expose on. the triune nature of him and the father. And so when we talk about first tier, kind of first rank issues, to me, the place I would look for first rank issues is first and foremost is to the scriptures to try and develop what

those are. And the formulation of the Trinity itself, that explanation of the three and one problem is not even explicitly in scripture. So in my mind, I don't know. How do you, how do you, I mean, do you think Jesus was more explicit with that? Do you think that that's an issue that it, I mean, I guess just the question would be, was the doctrine of the Trinity? And I mean that very specifically, the Trinity itself, was that a top tier issue for Jesus in Scripture? Yeah.

So, so I'll throw it, let me throw out a couple of texts. But, but in agreement kind of with your question and the instincts of your question, definitely there is development in the, in the technicality of the understanding of this. So you've got the teaching of Scripture. Scripture teaches in its own idiom, and it's not speaking at this really high philosophical level. Then as you go forward, you get more technicality. And part of that is you're trying to be clear to oppose this other idea. And there's really no way to get clarity except to use technical terms and use, you know, so the terms like homooseon come up and so forth. But passages I would look to for what I see, because I also could clarify to say, I don't think a person necessarily needs to even know the word of Trinity or all the technical terms.

Think of a young child, for example, who becomes a Christian. They may not know all the technical stuff. Again, there's that distinction between a knowing rejection and an imperfect understanding. The substance of it, though, might come into our relationship to Jesus Christ. And I would go to passages like John 824. I'll throw this one out and we can kick this one around. So here Jesus says, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. And the I am there is sometimes translated I am he or something like that, but it's just the Greek ego a me. And combining that with a few verses later in the chapter, verse 58, the before Abraham was I am,

I do think that's hearkening back to the divine name in Exodus 3. and so there seems to be a teaching, if I'm reading the verse right, where Jesus is saying, you need to know that I am or else you die in your sins. And the I am, I do take to be a claim to participate in the divine identity. So that's, I don't want to, I guess I'll put one other text on the table and then I'll pause there and you can take it any way you want. Another example would be the end of John's Gospel, Thomas's response, the appellation, and I know again that you believe Jesus is God, in a sense, and so we'll talk

through the differences here, but just from my vantage point, when Thomas is saying, my Lord and my God, and the response to that is, blessed are you for believing? So the arrows are like this, Thomas to Jesus says, my Lord and my God, Jesus to Thomas says, faith, that's faith. I would see this as, you know, something you take from that is then, okay, to relate to Jesus as God is part of what it means to have faith in Jesus, from Jesus's perspective. And so then we need to get into, well, what does that mean? And that's where, you know, it'll be helpful for us to dig this up a little bit. Those are two passages.

We can, I could throw out some others as well. But these would be texts where I would say, it looks to me like actually, Well, you don't need to have all this technical philosophy in your head. The question is, who is it that we worship? And is that entity that we worship the God who has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ? My understanding of that is Jesus does reveal himself as God and say, you know, you've got to believe that I am or else you die in your sins. How does that strike you? Let me kick it away.

Yeah, no, and I can see that. See, one of the challenges is that as we look at the scriptures, I think one of the things we have to notice is that if we're really honest, it's that they're not totally clear on exactly what this, how we resolve this tension between the one God and the three persons. I mean, you even have in John 17, three, where Jesus says, and this is life eternal, that they might know thee, speaking of the father, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent. Okay, so the only true God, the one true God, if you went up to Jesus and asked him that question. In John 17, it seems to say that it's the only true God is the, the he was referring to as the father.

Now, I'm going to, I'm not going to say like, oh, gotcha or something like that, because I would say that there are contradictions and or ambiguities within the scriptural record when you just look at the text alone. And the data comes out with this notion of three and one. and then it moves from okay how do we make sense of that now there is a massive gap so far as i can tell between the clarity on the notion of the trinity in scripture but somehow it has this importance where it's like you are damned and you can't be saved unless you get this thing right and it seems strange to me that there's like this disconnect between the between the clarity that's offered on such a high important first rank kind of issue. And one last thing on that, and then I'll turn it back over to you, is that I guess I just wonder,

oh, shoot, I forgot what I was going to say now. Oh, I would just say that the Trinity seems to be an interpretation of that data. And what it feels like anyway for Latter-day Saints is you're saying, look, unless you agree with a particular interpretation that we have of scripture, you are not a Christian and you are not going to be saved. And I would say that it's still an open debate as to what, I would say the great Christological debates are still going on and it's still an open thing. And for someone to just say, well, you are now damned if you fall outside of this interpretation that we've come up with, I think that, especially when I think that interpretation has a lot of issues, you can see how from a

Latter-day Saint perspective, it feels like that doesn't seem fair. When we want to, you know, if I would understand totally, if you were to go the other direction and say, look, if we rejected that Jesus Christ was fully divine, or rejected that he rose from the dead, or that he was the means of salvation, I could see that being something that disqualifies you from being considered a Christian in the biblical sense. But I just don't see in the Bible where it lays out this trinitarian formulation to resolve the three and one problem okay well fair enough i appreciate you sharing that so let's and i agree about the need for interpretation so anything we're talking about there's this human element of we're not uh infinite robots so the data comes in and we've got to

work through it as as finite human beings what But I think that's true for everything. And, you know, the same thing we could say for any aspect of our faith. So, you know, someone might say, oh, let's take something like something very basic. Well, you mentioned some examples there. So the resurrection of Christ from the dead. You know, someone might say, well, we have to interpret this. And they might say, I don't understand what that means exactly.

there might be ambiguity and how you're understanding that. And yet, you might come out with the evaluation. I think you would agree on this. This is still essential, even though there is an element of interpretation in it and subjectivity and appropriating the revelation God is given. Could I actually, I don't know that I would necessarily agree. And I want to say that in a certain way. You see, I think we come from very different paradigms about why.

these things matter. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, it kind of feels like there's a theology test where it's like if I don't pass the question on the Trinity, and if I reject that, if I say it doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not going to go with it, that like there's a binary line, right? And if I'm on the other side of belief on certain lines, theologically, that I then go to hell. Now, on the other side, from a Latter-day Saint perspective, I view these things as important, but I do them important in a different way because our view of kind of soteriology isn't binary. For example, I would say to you, Trent, I would never say that I think that because you reject a particular doctrine that I have, that you're, quote-unquote, going to hell because we don't conceptualize hell in the same way

that a lot of creedal Christians do. The idea is, is that you have risen to a certain level of light and knowledge and truth that is transforming you into something bigger and better than what you were without it, right? And so what I'm basically saying is I think that if you were to have a different understanding theologically, it would enhance your growth. Like you would, you would continue to grow beyond that. And what a lack of knowledge and understanding does is it's like it stunts our growth. It's like my son, for example, my own child. I would, I want to teach him things and give him information and he's learning a lot and he's growing and all of these kinds of things and if he continues to grow and learn then he'll continue to grow and learn to become what he ultimately

can become right to reach his full potential and so in my mind the importance of knowing these truths from a kind of a latter-day saint paradigm is simply because without understanding knowledge in truth, you stunt your growth. Whereas I feel like in a more traditional sense, it's sort of like, because there's a binary line, there are certain things that if not embraced, put you on the other side of that line. Now, is that a fair framing? I mean, is that of kind of the, I guess the, why does God care so much about a theology

test? Yeah. Well, I agree with some of what you're saying. So the theology test, I wouldn't say it's a theology test. I would agree that your theology is organically related to your whole existential relationship to God. So it's not an arbitrary thing. Every human soul is either connected to God or not connected to God. So it's a binary in that sense.

There's good and evil, and you're moving in one direction or the other. But the theology you have isn't merely a test. So I agree with the thrust of your comments about kind of this more holistic understanding of salvation. but I would say that the Trinity is not a theology test any more than if you go on a date with a girl and afterwards someone asks, you know, tell me about it, and you can't remember if it was Cynthia or Sally. Okay. You don't know who it was. You literally don't know the identity of the person you're on a date with. Then your friend is going to be justified in saying, you probably didn't have a great time, or you probably don't know her very well, or have an authentic relationship with her.

That's not a quiz or arbitrary. That's just, do you have accurate understanding of the person in question? To me, even if you take the word Trinity off the table, and if you take the technical terms off the table, it's merely an issue of accuracy in terms of do we relate to the actual God who is for whether we worship Jesus as God? And that's not a theology quiz because it's an action, worship, and prayer, and existential relation. And it's just a matter of accuracy. You know, is Jesus created or is the uncreated God?

So, and from a latter-day saint perspective, I would look at that and say, well, I embrace the man who died on Calvary as my savior and that he really was a fully divine being who has the power to save me. And I am following him with all my heart, mind, and strength. And I've given my life to him. and I will follow his teachings and commandments and treat others as he would have me be treated and so if I'm

doing all of those things the only thing that seems to be the difference here is that I lack some sort of I have a theological disagreement about the way that he relates to the father and to me it's sort of like I don't even I mean how many people do you know that even like that are Christians

who really deeply understand the doctrine of the Trinity and can explain it I think they can. I think with the basics, you know, three, three persons, one being, some, some, you're right that there's sometimes misunderstanding. I would, well, and I would say, I would say that I do believe in three persons who share one nature, the divine nature. But there's a difference between saying that I believe that the father, son, and holy

spirit are all divine and share in the one divine nature versus saying that they are all homoousious. and Jesus exists within a hypostatic union. And so when we really get into specifics, because in generalities, I would find that most the Christians that I talk to, they believe in a form of modalism a lot of the time or something like that, at least intellectually, just because they're the ones that will give you the analogies that don't work all the time because that's the only analogies they can do to try and make sense of the Trinitarian formulation.

But I guess my point is that this just seems from a, Latter-day Saint perspective as like, really, God would send me to hell because I have a difference in belief about the, that I believe that the oneness of God and Jesus and the Father is one of nature of divinity rather than one of substance. Well, I'll say two things on the most Christians understanding, I think it depends on where you look. I mean, certainly you find a lot of modalism, you find a lot of errors. Honestly, maybe it's the circles I run. I think most Christians can understand the difference between saying Jesus is God versus Jesus, or let's say, to use a less ambiguous phraseology, Jesus is uncreated versus Jesus as a created being. I think most Christians

have some, their alarm bells start going off a little bit. I would reiterate and kick back to you my analogy of Cynthia versus Sally. I don't know why I thought of those days. I don't know any Cynthia's or sallies, but just to point is, you know, again, it's not a bad. out, and also I'd say, I'm, again, to reiterate, I don't know exactly what God is going to do in every individual case. I certainly hope for salvation for people. But in terms of what I, as a teacher, who's going to give an account for my words, put forward. And because the most unloving thing I could ever do is give someone false assurance and say, oh, yeah, you're fine. This is not something you need to believe. And then it turns out this is actually really important. I would just say, whether you

worship Jesus as uncreated God is not a trivial matter. And it's not a theology test. And it's not arbitrary. It's about whether you're on a date with Cynthia or Sally. Every time you pray to Jesus, you're praying to somebody. And it's the question is, is the right Jesus? And Jesus himself is pretty adamant. You know, he's giving a warning when he says, if you don't believe that I am, you will die in your sins. I want to honor those words. Yeah, and I would say that there's a certain interpretation going on of what he means by those words that obviously we disagree with. Now, to use your Sally and Cynthia analogy, you know, it comes down to, okay, well, what if you're talking about, well, I was on a date with Cynthia. I agree with Cynthia. We're all on the same page there, but I think Cynthia went to

you know, X high school and you say she went to Y high school. And let's say I was wrong about that. well, wouldn't it be, I mean, is that, does that ruin the whole date? Is that mean that we don't have a relationship because I had some sort of a thing about something about her that I didn't understand properly? Again, in my mind, I do think it's important and it's good. It deepens the relationship, the more that we understand accurately about other people. But when we get down to it, like, what is it about God that I don't believe? leave that would justify me being damned for it.

Well, the reason I use two different names to signify two different people, Cynthia versus Sally, rather than which high school the same person attended is because I think the difference between a created being and an uncreated being is more significant than just what high school someone went to. So again, I would just say, and I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope I'm not annoying you at a person. Oh, no, no, you're fine. You're doing great.

Because I realize this is intense. I mean, I've had conversations where the person on the other end says, yeah, I think you're out of salvation for some other issue. I always respected them for their willingness to say that because it's an interesting thing to say. Here's the thing. I want you to be straight up with me. If you say that I don't believe that you're going to be saved for XYZ reasons or you're in a position that's outside of salvation, I think you have an obligation to actually say that to people if you really care about them. Exactly. And it's not a statement of, I know what God will do in that case or that case. It's a statement of what is the message I am accountable to as a minister of the gospel, that I want to be able to stand before God one day and say, I spoke the truth as my conscience led me. And so I think the identity of Jesus is not a technicality. I think the identity of Jesus is basically, are you on a date with Cynthia or Sally? Who is this person that died on the cross for your sins? Is he the God man? Is he the one who says, before Abraham, I am?

You know, to kick it forward here, if you want to offer a contrary interpretation of John 8, feel free. I don't want to put you on the spot with that. Also, we could just get into other texts where I think, you know, I've talked a lot about Philippians too, and the hymn of praise here, where Jesus participates in the divine name, where every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess, he is Lord. and you've got the name that is above every other name, which I think is the divine name. This is how Christians are worshipping Jesus in the 50s A.D.,

where they're regarding him to use Richard Bacom's language as participating in the identity of God. From my vantage point, from my interpretation, and I would, just to address some of those or bring it up, remember, Latter-day Saints fully agree that Jesus is God in the sense of that he's fully divine, in the predicate sense of that word. Right.

Okay, just as Dr. Situwate might say, right, that he is a fully divine being. Because Jesus is very clearly distinguished from the Father in terms of like, I mean, even in the Nicene Creed, it says we believe in one God, the Father Almighty. The Father is always in Scripture referred to as the Almighty, the highest one, right? and Jesus is referred to, I mean, Jesus himself even says that what he does, you know, Philippians too says, every tongue shall, you know, confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God, the Father. Right? So again, this seems to set up.

Now, I'm not here to kind of be like, I don't want to kind of got your scriptural verses. What I'm going to say is, is that there seems to be that this is still an open conversation in my mind. It's how do we make sense of these? Where I feel like what happens is that people, they throw down a thing and say, no, our interpretation is correct. And if you see, it's almost like we don't argue about the Trinity. It's just our interpretation is correct. And if you don't believe it, you're going to hell.

And in my mind, I want to almost like have that conversation be more open because when something isn't explicitly laid out in scripture and then to tie salvation to something. that is not explicitly laid out in Scripture. And I use that word explicitly, like I put a lot of emphasis on that because I think most people can agree that the Trinitarian formulation of the homoousious relationship

between God, the Father, and the Son, is not explicitly laid out in Scripture. And so when you bring up, for example, a created being, like, again, there are a ton of assumptions in there, like that assumes Creatio X in the He, Hilo, which is something that we don't accept. And I don't think holds up well with the actual biblical views of the ancient Hebrews. And so, again, I guess I'm not, I'm not so much here to say that, hey, I have the right formulation of God per se, as much as I am to say, isn't this still

an open question? Isn't there still a good discussion to be had about if this interpretation is the correct interpretation? Considering that I believe the true. Trinity itself as a concept. Like for me, I can't, I often tell people it isn't that I don't believe it. It's it, I don't, I can't even make sense of it. It doesn't seem to even be able to jive rationally with the various problems with it. Maybe to, maybe it can help us. What are the boundaries that you would say for a proper conception of God that are sort of

limit basic and liminal and if you don't have them you do not have hope that this person is uh saved or on the way to salvation are there any boundaries and what would you make as the first rank issues this this is a great question um i would say this again going back to this like when you're saying first rank just so i understand just to make sure um what does that mean to be first rank. It means that you can't be saved without it. If someone rejects this, you do not have confidence that they can be saved or that they are saved. Okay. And see, this again, I just want to highlight the paradigm difference that we come here because I think we understand that we're coming from a totally different framing. I don't see this as a binary thing. It isn't you're saved or you're

not saved. It isn't you're in your heaven or you're out of heaven. That is not the way that Latter-day Saints view it. Latter-day Saints view it as Christ has opened the door to allow for you to progress to your fullness of your potential as a child of God. Okay. I would say that sort of every issue matters. Let me use this as an analogy. Let's talk about an acorn.

An acorn can become an oak tree. And there are different things I can do to that acorn to help it become an oak tree. Okay, you ask, well, what one of those are first-tier things you need to do? Well, yeah, there are some things that I think help it more, but everything that I do to that acorn to help it progress is part of the process that helps this acorn become what it has the potential to be, right? And so when you talk about first tier issues, for me, it isn't like, okay, these are the things that if you don't believe them that you end up on the wrong side of the scale and you're like you're done. In my mind, it's all truth is like the water, light, all of that stuff that. helps you to grow. Now, there are things that make a big difference. I think that understanding that you are a child of God, for instance, that's a truth that is immensely important, that you are not

ontologically a different kind from God. I think that's massively important because it says something about who you are as a child of God. I think that when you, to understand that Jesus Christ is the way through which you can reach that divine potential that you can be saved from this world of what we would call damnation or kind of stopping your progress and staying in this sort of a fallen state that you're in and not rising above that to some higher potential. In my mind, that's another massively important one, right? But I wouldn't even say, obviously, I think that these theological truths are sort of foundational, but all truth helps us to grow in light and knowledge and goodness as we expand and come to know it.

So are there certain things that really matter? I'd say, well, they all matter, and some have a bigger effect on us than others. And amongst those, I would say things like, God is our father. You are his child. Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life, the way that you come to reach your full potential

and be saved from this fallen world. And I could go on to others, but those are, you know, he wants us to make covenant with him through baptism and join his covenant household. And yeah, so there's lots more that I can do, but those are some of the big foundational ones. Sure, and I'll say two things.

I mean, I agree that the vast majority of beliefs aren't the make it or break at first tier kind of things. There's a spectrum, different things affect us in different ways. I also agree our beliefs, it's not just the technicality being in your mind. But I do think, when I say first-rank things, to use your metaphor of the acorn, I think there are some things that can kill the acorn.

Just like in nature, something can cause the acorn to stop growing. Similarly, I think the scripture is replete with warnings that there are some things that can sever us from God. When Jesus speaks of dying...

Can I address that actually real quick? You hit on something really, really good. I'll give it back. Sure, and then I'll finish my comments once you're done. Sorry, I just, you just hit on something really, really important. You're exactly right.

It is the stop of progress. See, for Latter-day St. we don't believe in damnation that people go to hell. We believe that what happens is when people cut people themselves off from God, they end up stopping their ability to continue their progression. It's like cutting yourself off from the vine. And so, yes, if you at any point decide that you want to reject truth, then you've stopped your progress in that thing.

You can't continue to progress unless you're willing to be open to all truth. Sorry about that. Back to you. Totally fine. And that would just be a different way of expressing what we will speak of as hell is the banishment from God, the failure to attain union with God and salvation and partake in God because God is the source of all light and goodness. What can it be but hell if you're cut off from God if you reject God? But there are some things that you can do to do that. Now, you've mentioned some. So I think, you know, the idea of first-rank issues, I don't think is where we differ, because you've identified some issues here where if you, like you mentioned, you know, that Jesus is the way.

Okay, well, there are plenty of people who would say to you, that's a particular interpretation. You know, this should be more of an open conversation. There's lots of liberal-minded people who think it's incredibly crazy to think Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Look at all these other religions and so on and so forth. So I think we're differing here in where we set the dials, but not that we both have, whether you call them first-rank issues or lethal beliefs or whatever you might call them. And I'm, you know, throughout this live conversation, I probably, I'm not saying I'm stating everything perfectly. I may have clumsily stated things here and there. So again, I want to reiterate, we're not as far off on conceptually on some of these things.

Again, beliefs for me, it's not just a, it's not a theology quiz. It's not just the beliefs. It's the beliefs in relation to your whole existential orientation to God and the truth. But there's things you can believe. You mention God as your father. There's all kinds of people who say, no, we don't believe in God as a father. You mentioned ontological distinction. Well, that would be me.

Okay, so I think there's a thick ontological distinction between God and all that is not God. So you might, as we talk, come to a similar view of me, though you might word it differently. you'll probably be more generous and tactful than I've been in terms of first rank issues and so and so forth. You know, you might not put me on the spot as much, but you'd probably say the same thing of me if I heard you, right, because I think there is an ontological, thick distinction between God and everything that's not God. Yeah, no, and so I would, so here's the way that I would frame it.

We believe in what we call the kingdoms of glory, right? You might have heard of that, the idea of three degrees of glory. it really the three degrees i i would i would talk about it just think of it as a spectrum right and all of these are levels of true happiness and joy and i would look at you you know fully gavin and say you have risen in the kingdoms of glory the way of being in the universe really high um and you are you know when you pass away all of the goodness light truth and knowledge that you have brought on and taken into yourself, you will retain. You won't, it isn't like there's this line that divides heaven from hell and in one half of this is eternal bliss and then the other half is eternal

torment and suffering and agony. But I would say that you will retain what you have, what you've been willing to accept, the light and truth that you've been willing to let in. But what I want to say is, it is correct that if, that I would say, Gavin, you don't know your full potential. like you have accepted a particular view that I believe would hold you back from doing that. Now, you might say that kind of a similar thing that Jacob with what you're doing, but I think the distinction would be that I look at it and say, you're not going to hell. You just are limiting the amount of glory that you're allowing yourself to receive,

whereas most Christians would look at us and they say, know, like, this belief is going to send you to hell, to a place that is a torturous, awful place, because you didn't connect yourself to God in this, or through this sort of an embrace of the proper understanding of the homooseous relationship between the father and the son, which really is at the root of the difference of our, you know, beliefs about Jesus. If that makes sense. Yeah. Let me reiterate, no one is going to hell for not knowing or understanding or using the term homooseon per se. Okay, that's one word that is, again, the more technical expression of the belief.

The belief, though, is important. That is foundational. So, again, are you on the date with Cynthia or Sally? Do you, are you, when you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, are you relating to someone? who is eternal, who is what I, my interpretation of the words, I am in John 824, just to finish this thought. So it's, but it's not, it's not an arbitrary thing. It's like, basically, the view is all of us are sinful and in need of salvation.

All of us are running away from God and the light. God has provided a remedy for that. But to receive the remedy, we have to take it. And one aspect of taking the remedy is a sort of doctrinal component. in the doctrine and the whole existential life relation to the remedy of salvation God has provided is all bound up together because what we believe affects how we relate to God. And so it's pretty foundational whether or not we think of Jesus as eternal and uncreated and divine in a trinitarian sense. And I would say that the warning, you know, when I talk about heaven and hell

and a binary and stuff like that, I'm trying to be faithful to the scripture. I think Jesus himself gives a lot of warnings about hell. I mean, in fact, he speaks in lurid categories for it, banishment to the outer darkness, weeping, gnashing of teeth, etc. So I would actually feel horrified if I sort of downplayed that and gave people the impression of, oh, we don't need to be concerned about this or anything like that. I think all of us will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, given account of our lives, and we need a savior.

We need – and the great news is God's provided that. But accuracy about what he's provided and who it is that provided it is not arbitrary or theology quiz. I see it as just taking the medicine, just like if you take the wrong medicine in real life, you don't get better. So we have to take the correct metaphysical medicine, so to speak. When Jesus says, if you don't believe I am, you will die in your sins, there's the two things that need to be interpreted there, the I am. and and pairing that with John 858 and before Abraham was born I am drawing from Exodus 3. But the other phrase there is dying in your sins. You know, how do you read that?

What do you think it means to die in your sins? Do you, can you appreciate the sense of wanting to heed these warnings from Christ? Yeah, absolutely. So, so, and I would, I would say this. Yeah, if you die in your sins, if I don't, if I don't repent of sins, then those remain with me but it's it's again to throw the binary thing it's sort of like how much how much sin is allowed in heaven it's like none so if you don't repent of every sin then you go to hell right and so this idea is and granted now through jesus christ he's offered us to to be saved from from all

sin through his blood now again there's this binary of have i taken the medicine or not and have i taken the right medicine. Well, again, you can go, I would say that I've taken the right medicine and you would say that I haven't because now you just said, you have to believe that Jesus is eternal and uncreated. I do. I believe that. So. Okay. Tell me more about that. I would like to, I would like to, I actually would be very curious. What are the things that I have to believe about Jesus in order to avoid this place of hell. And let's see where I miss. Like, am I missing something?

Yeah, because that's a good question. Because the binary there, I would say the binary is there from Christ's words. To either to die in your sins is giving a particular destination that he seems to be calling people out of. But all throughout the teaching of Christ, it's a binary. It's the sheep over here and the goats over there. And he's calling people to salvation. It can sound harsh, but it's a way of saying there is a need.

for salvation and it's possible to miss that. So it, you know, that results in a binary. It's not an arbitrary or harsh thing. It's just... And I, and the Latter-day Saint view on that would be the binary is between progression or damnation. Progression is the opposite of damnation. The idea is this. Christ is saying, I will take you as far as you will let me take you. The moment you stop repenting and following me, you're stuck at the level that you've reached. Okay. And so, the idea of repentance and being willing to repent of everything, that's saying, Lord,

I'll go wherever you want me to go. That is where you will be led to your ultimate, not just salvation, but exaltation, as we would put it. And so Christ has offered you this gift to come and take you by the hand, but you get to decide how far he's going to let you take. You're going to,

how much you're willing to follow him through what and through the hard things. And a true follower of Christ never gives up on him, so he never gives up on you. And so the binary that exists is between, are you going to follow him or not? That's the way we would view it. But hell is the place of weeping, gnashing of teeth. We have a place that we call it outer darkness.

This is for someone who not only doesn't want to follow Jesus to a certain level. It's like they don't want to follow him at all. They just, they know the light. They hate light. Right. For those people, they'll only have darkness. And so for us, to use the light analogy, it's sort of like, how much light are you willing to take on? Because to take on higher and higher levels of light and truth and knowledge can actually require a lot of sacrifice.

And so Christ will take you as far as you're willing to go. And so, yes, and so I believe that us dying in our sins, if you wanted my mentality of that, he's saying, look, if you at some point give up, you'll die with those sins. that that's where you will stay and you won't get to enjoy the greater light and fruit that comes from a full commitment to Christ rather than just a partial or slightly misguided participation in Christ if that makes sense yeah tell me why I'd love to ask more about your views of Jesus a moment ago you said you believe Jesus is uncreated and God how would you in your own categories and own language how would you distinguish your views of Jesus from a say the nicene creed or something like that.

So first and foremost is that we don't believe any of us are created. We don't, because we reject creation ex nihilo, we don't believe anything was created. We believe that all, and this gets into some pretty deep water, but that all beings have existed for all eternity past, and that God and the Father and Jesus Christ have created a plan through which we can progress to become like them, to arise out of the chaotic, formless, of the cosmos, however that is interpreted. You know, you start to talk about things in eternity past and eternity future and you start getting really symbolic.

So like just recognize that some of this stuff is symbolic in the way that it's talking. But that we are to be able to become as they are and join in their kind of relationship that they enjoy and the kind of existence that they enjoy. And so Jesus Christ is the one who makes that possible through his, through his atonement. And so the distinction between created and uncreated beings, just it doesn't exist in our world. It's all a matter of progression and what type of existence you have and what you are fundamentally. We believe that we fundamentally are of the same kind as Jesus. And we are like acorns where they are like oak trees. Right. Okay. So yeah. So what you're

laying out there does get into, would you agree, our perspectives about God are very different, maybe even down to the roots? Yes, but I wonder how much that matters in the sense of, again, if I'm framing this in terms of progression, not in terms of a binary heaven and hell, why do I care what these things mean at all? like why does Jesus and not like that Jesus didn't if we look at Jesus's life Jesus when you taught the sermon on the Mount he wasn't talking about let me give you guys the right trinitarian formulation so that that way you guys can be saved Christ even would say

you know people that we're doing miracles in his name with the wrong understanding that like hey if you're not with us you're for us kind of a thing so I just don't see in scripture that this proper theological understanding of God as being a first-tier issue in any way. Okay. So it sounds like part of what we just are having different instincts on is just the role of theology in general, not just what theological positions we hold, but how important doctrine is. I mean, I agree the sermon on the Mount is cast a little bit more towards certain ethical issues, like how you interpret the law and murder and adultery and tithing and things like this. But I would disagree about, to me, this would be a binary to say progress in salvation

or salvation itself is over here and then the beliefs are over here. Because Jesus also says things, that's why I brought up John 8. He says a lot about himself. I mean, all throughout the gospel of John, he's making claims, this is who I am. And I think what we believe about Jesus is theology, and that really matters, not in an arbitrary way, but because what we believe about Jesus is going to play out into every aspect of our relationship with him, just like if you're on a date with Sally, but you think you're on a date with Cynthia, it's going to affect the date. And I would agree in this sense, it does matter to our progression. The binary is just if you're willing to follow Jesus and accept him. Think of it this way.

The moment of salvation is the moment that you accept Jesus and that I'm going to follow you. Okay. That's the moment at which within a latter-day saint category, it's the opening of the gate to the path towards your ultimate full potential. If you have not accepted Jesus Christ, if you haven't said, I'm going to follow that guy, then you have not risen to like you're you're kind of you haven't picked the right guide to take you to your full potential right there's only one guide and that's jesus christ who can take you to your your highest and fullest potential and so if you don't choose jesus christ then you're outside of let's say

that like you can't be saved as it were but once you've entered into that path the new christian who just gets baptized and is following pledged their life to jesus and my mind it's like that's the very beginning and at that point their theology is going to be wrong there's all sorts of things that are going to be wrong but as long as they stay committed to following him both in this life and in the next they'll be fine yeah so just follow yeah sorry jump in oh go ahead go ahead where i would differ is i would think to as soon as we start to define the phrase following jesus and even just the word jesus we're doing theology and it really matters what we mean by that somebody could say to you, well, I'm following Jesus.

And what they mean is something that is so outside of your frame of what that means to follow Jesus, you would say, well, that's not following Jesus. Now, a couple quick things. You said Mark 9, people casting out demons. There's nothing in that text that says there's bad theology in that exorcist. All it tells us is he was casting out demons in Jesus' name. And it's the mere relational aloofness. The disciples don't know this person, but there's nothing said that he has bad theology.

I think our theology of who Jesus is really matters because it affects what it means to follow him. I mean, again, when I worship, when I get on my knees as I do and I pray to Jesus, I've got something going on in my head about what the word Jesus means that affects what I pray for. And it affects who I'm conceptualizing, what I'm even doing. And that is like being on the date with Sally versus Cynthia to me. I mean, this is where theology is not an abstraction. It's going to play out in the whole existential relationship. I don't think we're disagreeing too much principally.

I think we're kind of we're cashing it out in different terms. But I think you and I would agree that defining what it means to follow Jesus can be a decisive binary between you're actually doing it. See, the differences I agree that I don't think that we're that far away. But on one side of this conversation, it's sort of like, but Jacob, you're on the wrong side of this, of this. this binary divide and because you hold of this view, you'll go to hell. I mean, if a, if a, let's say that somebody was praying, deeply sincere Christian, I'm sure that there's plenty of them in there, but they actually have a modalist understanding of God and they're praying sincerely. But they, they don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity and they, they've heard it

many times and they've accepted it kind of on a modalist basis. Is that person like, Like, does that change their relation in a substantial way to where they now can't be saved? I would say, no, of course not. The Lord, what Christ cares about, it's funny. I like this, I believe it's in, I have the scripture, I don't have the reference. It's about the John the Baptist. He says to the Jews. And these people, you know, they were like the theologians, man.

And they said, he said, and do not presume to say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father. for I and then he says to them for I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham the axe lies ready at the root of the trees and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire so his concern wasn't with the theology in fact I would imagine that the scribes and Pharisees he was talking to they probably had a a pretty good understanding of who God was but they lacked the fruits and so all throughout the scriptural Again, the emphasis here is on the fruits and sort of a lived walk with God rather than, hey, do you, I mean, it doesn't even have the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly laid out in this, but yet it's a first-tier issue. So I guess I'm just, I know you're saying that it affects your relationship, but in my mind, I think that you're,

it isn't affect your relationship to such a degree that God is going to prevent you from being part of his kingdom or stop your, basically, I don't think God's going to send me to hell because I, a modalist to hell, right? But I don't know. Well, let me, let me say three things. One is, I want you to be saved. Okay, so, so, you know, I know what it can feel like to experience, you know, that's a person, we're talking about something very personal. and very intense. And I just want to acknowledge that. For where I am clumsy in articulating my views about this, I'm sorry, that's on me, but I want to be faithful to the views themselves because it's what I think is true. Just like you, if you were talking to someone who defined following Jesus in such a way that you

thought, you're actually not moving in the right direction, you'd want to be candid about that, and not because you're against them, but precisely because you want them to experience salvation. So I'm trying to, I'm acknowledging the intensity of this and trying to share where I'm coming from in that. The second thing is I agree on modalism. Again, I said earlier, you can have an imperfect understanding or a misunderstanding. So it's not about are you 100% technically correct in the details. There, though, modalism will affect things. So, and this is the third thing.

You kind of brought up the, you're saying the emphasis is on the fruit. And, you know, it's like beliefs versus fruit. I would just see those as kind of more organically connected. In the scriptures, we have the statement that they crucified, they sinned the Pharisees because they did not recognize the Lord of Glory. We have 1 Corinthians 12, 3, which talks about the necessity of the confession that Jesus is Lord. Philippians 2, the confession, every knee shall bow, tant confess Jesus is Lord. The confession and apprehension of the identity of Jesus is, I would say, baked right in.

into the fruit and our relationship. But I, I, and I would, I would say that Jesus is Lord. Right. I think of, yeah, I know. I'd be very, and I'm, I'm curious about this. I was not, just to clarify, just to clarify, I'm not trying to say that disproves the Mormon conception specifically. I'm trying to speak principally about fruit versus theology and the way they're connected

to each other organically at the head. And I, and to be fair, I agree, there is a connection between them. And I guess I'm just wondering is that if we're going. to have this, like, I'm actually very curious. Like, what must I believe about Jesus? Like, what is a required thing to believe in Jesus in order to be saved? And I'd like to almost do like an inventory on myself to see where the distinctions are and how meaningful are they. Because within the Christian world, the idea is, is that Mormons aren't Christian. Latter-day Saints are not Christians. And so I want to see, okay, well, I believe in the New Testament.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that he is only through him can salvation be achieved. I believe he is a fully divine being, you know, all of those kinds of things. So I guess what else do I need to, like what lack I yet when it comes to the necessary theological beliefs to merit salvation? Let's talk. Okay. That's a great question. to unpack that in this kind of final wing of the conversation here, we could unpack our different

conceptions of God and basically what we mean by that word God. And the reason I suggest that, again, we're seeking clarity here in understanding. Hopefully this is the first of many conversations and much relationship and much dialogue. So we don't have to resolve everything here, but we're seeking clarity. So in that spirit, because the reason I say that is, to answer your question of what must I believe, I would say one of the things is from John 824 and other texts, Jesus is God, and another phraseology we could use is Jesus is Lord. And so that requires us to get into, what do we mean by the words God and Lord? And so maybe to step back, I can share. And when we get in this, I just want to say, I would share both those sentiments. I say Jesus is God, Jesus is Lord.

Obviously, what do we mean by that? That's where we have to get into the details. That is my point. So that's why I'm suggesting we get into the definition of God, precisely because of what you just said, because you affirm those things, but we mean something very different by them. And so to get into what is required to be a Christian, and if we say the recognition of Jesus as God, we've got to then double-click on that, unpack it,

and start working through. What do we mean by that? And to do that, so maybe I'll step back and look at the whole of scripture for a moment and say, my conception of God is that he is eternal. Psalm 90, verse 2, from everlasting to everlasting you are God, that the other entities that are called God's Elohim in the Scripture are portrayed as created beings.

Nehemiah 96, the story. Can we double-click created real quick? By created, you mean that they were created out of nothing? Because there's an ontological. So one of the big differences here as we dig into sort of understanding the distinctions is creation X Nihilo is a massive difference. Because it creates an ontological difference between things that are created and things that are not created.

And so if I were to tell you, let's just say that it was the case, that there's no such thing as creation out of nothing, that would change. everything for your theological point of view. Is that fair to say? Oh, yeah. Creation X, Neelow is huge. You could still have God creating angels in some other way or something like that. But when I referenced Nehemiah 96, yeah, that's what I'm conceptualizing is that he draws them into being. They are not eternal. There is a time when nothing but God exists. In fact, time itself is a creation of God. And so, yes, Creation X. Neelow is probably a lynchpin issue. at the core of where we will differ.

And the divine beings that are called angels or demons throughout the scripture, they can sometimes be called gods. But, like, in Salmate, for example, angels, I think are called gods there. But they're, you know, Michael Heiser, I know you're very familiar with Michael Heiser's work. So he will speak of God. He'll acknowledge that as a reality of the biblical text. But then he'll also say that God, the one God, is species unique. He is God in a different sense.

He's the one that didn't come out of nothing because he's always existed. That would be one aspect of the qualitative distinction. Yeah. Another would be that God is a necessary being. He must be, whereas all things that God creates are contingent. The necessary, the entire notion of necessity and contingency collapses within creation XNahilo, if it's creation X material. because if everything has always existed, then there is no, everything is eternal.

And this is one of the most radical things in Latter-day Saint thought, is that there is a rejection of ex-Nahilo creation entirely. And so the entire contingent and fundamental nature of God in that sense. Now, it's kind of like when we talk about creation, it doesn't mean creation doesn't, exist, creation is more like a painter. I can create something as a painter. That doesn't mean that I made the paint out of nothing, right? You can take existing things and organize them and create order,

which, again, I think there's an entire discussion to have about that. But I just want to, I just want to point out for the sake of clarity, not to try and make a point here per se, but to just point out that X Nihilo creation is a massive linchpin that so many of the things within the creedal tradition right on. And I think it would be worth people's time to actually evaluate if ex-Nahilo creation was the actual sort of original view of, for example, the Hebrew Bible. But that's kind of a separate thing. But it's just a just, I won't be able to recognize that X-Nahilo creation is a massive reason

that there's a distinction here. Anyway, sorry, go ahead. For the alternative to X, ex-Nihilo creation, by the way, for people watching that's Latin for from nothing. What do you see the, in your view, is the physical world eternal? What is the, maybe just give us a couple sentences sketching your view. How do you? Yeah, I would probably say something like this, that underlying the physical reality is something that we might call a spiritual realm that has always existed. And so that the interface, I think the best way to analogize it is something like consciousness is,

fundamental and that if consciousness is fundamental, if that spiritual realm is fundamental, and the physical realm is emergent from that realm, that realm is the realm that I don't describe it. That is a realm from which all things

have come and that we interface with in some way or another. So, but that is, but that did not ever come into being, even if the physical universe did at some point was organized out of a pre-existing, let's call it a pre-existent chaos of something akin to maybe what a, I'm not saying it is this, but something akin to what a scientist might call

like a quantum vacuum with various sort of chaotic particles existing in that space. Something like that. Okay. And God, in your view, was once sort of the acorn and now is the full tree. So I actually don't hold to that view. There is a Latter-day Saint view that holds to an eternal regression of gods. I don't hold that. There's nothing in Latter-day St. Scripture that holds to that notion. I believe the Father has always been fully divine. And by fully divine, I mean that he exists within a certain kind of loving relationship with the Son and the Spirit and all of creation or in all of the, yeah, they exist in a certain kind of way of being, eternally that we call divinity, which is a type of relationship. That's probably my best approximation. It's pretty deep water.

Yeah. Not to keep peppering you with questions, but just one other would be, how would you specifically demarcate the difference in your conception of creation versus a Trinitarian one? So the basic notion of creation is that we believe that God worked with the as the scriptures would say, sort of the chaotic waters of reality, and then from the chaos, he brought about order to align with this order of being that we would call sort of the divine way, or what we'll call the celestial order, let's say. Okay. Now, I have to say that, so we do disagree on X-Nee, hello. That would be something we, you know, another thing to double-click on and work through. But I have to say that what you're describing is not what I have previously understood of Mormon views of God. If you're saying the Father of the Son and the Holy Spirit are all eternal, do you think anything else is eternal alongside the Father and Son?

All of us. We believe that all beings have existed as the terminology that's used is intelligences. So this is again, it's sort of like, what the heck does that mean? It's the language that's used to describe something like we in some sort of an essential sense have always, existed, but in a lower form even than we are now, and that he then brought us into a higher state of existence, and then we are continuing on that journey to become as he is. Okay. See, that to me is sufficiently different from historic Christian views of creation and the Trinity, that I would look at that and say, I don't think there should be surprise

that this is going to be looked at as a departure. I would agree, but here's where I would say, is that departure sufficient to warrant being sent to hell? Well, again, we get to what are the boundaries of, you know, because you believe as well, that there are boundaries of what you have to believe to get to heaven. And I would say that.

Well, but I would preface that. I would be very careful with that. I would qualify that. I would say there are things that you have to believe in order to continue your progression. and what you have to believe is all truth. And any time you reject truth, you hinder your progression. And until you repent and realign yourself with what truth is,

you can't progress further than you've arrived. There is no... Go ahead. A different way of saying the same thing I was saying, namely there's boundaries to salvation. Yeah, but I wouldn't, but the difference is that the boundary that I'm talking about isn't between a place of eternal torture and torment on one side and eternal bliss on the other.

It's you have progressed this far. You get to keep all the goodness, light, and truth like Gavin, when I look at you or Trent Horn or other Christians, I say, I'm so happy with what you're doing because you are bringing light and truth and knowledge and goodness to the world. But what I'm saying is that it's incomplete. Whereas I feel like when people look at us, they say, Mormons are a big problem because they're going to, send people to hell they aren't making people progress like I look at you is bringing you bring progress to people you bring

people closer to Jesus Christ but for most Christians the way that I at least the way that I hear it is you either are bringing people to the right Jesus or you're sending them to hell there is no kind of like in between

there isn't like hey you're helping out the cause but I hope you can open your mind to more so I think we can have an in between of sorts so you there can be progress in going from worse views about God and religion to better, okay? Yeah. But I would disagree that it's unique to my perspective that there is an ultimate cutoff point because, and part in my desire with that, because either you're going to end up

with God or not with God. I mean, so in my, I know the idea of hell really, really strikes modern people and people struggle with it. I understand. That's been probably one of the deepest sources of something, especially when I was in college, I had to work through myself as a source of tremendous doubt. I think in one way of looking at it is this is the fairest view of the afterlife of all because it says you get what you want. People who reject God, reject God. And they get that. People who accept God receive what that entails, which is heaven, because God is the source of all being in life and so forth. So I don't,

I don't think we're, you know, you're acting as though I've got this binary view and then you've got something different. I don't actually accept that. I don't think it's all that different because you would say ultimately it's possible. Look, Jesus warns about the weeping and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness. That's something. It's possible to end up there. That's not an idle threat. So that's what I'm talking about. Now, and I would agree that those who hate light, truth and goodness that that is where they end up because that's where that ultimately leads. What I'm saying, though, is, and I want to make the distinction without doing a disservice to like what you're saying because I guess could I go to hell and still be very very very very happy like wildly happy in hell no okay you know no I would say to you

that's like saying can you you know if you reject food can you still be nourished God is the source of all happiness well what if you're able to accept a ton of things about God but not the fullness of God is that possible I don't think so see and that's and that's work. See, and that's, that's, that's where we have a difference. Like, I believe that you do accept God, genuinely, and you take God into your life, and you take enormous amounts into your life. And I would look at any Christian, and I would say, keep going, like, keep following that light and goodness and truth and knowledge. And you won't lose that when you die and end up somewhere else. Whereas I feel like people look at us, and they say, look, Latter-day Saints, you're good people,

have good families, you're praying together, you're serving your communities, you're, you know, all this good stuff that is happening, but you're going to be eternally miserable because you don't accept a particular formulation of God that if you don't accept that you're it's like you're worshipping again the wrong Jesus

and therefore if you worship the wrong Jesus, isn't like you get a key, because he's really, really similar to the real Jesus, but it's just missing these things. Therefore, all of the other stuff doesn't matter. Like you don't get to keep any of that goodness. So what I'm saying is, is just to differentiate to create the clarity here. Like, I do believe that despite maybe not embracing the fullness of God,

that because you embrace so much of God, so much of truth and goodness and all that, that you will retain that. And you will, you will go where you want. Like, I don't want, like, I want to go to goodness, light, and truth. And I believe if I find something. some of that and retain it that I don't lose it when I die. That makes sense. Something like that. Okay. Well, and I don't want to keep reiterating too much. I will say, I think, again, I think the basic way I could put it going back to John 8 is it looks to me like Jesus is saying,

our beliefs about him are relevant to whether we die in our sins. I mean, it's like, unless you believe that I am, Jesus doesn't say, you'll only die in your sins if you hate the light. and run away from it. Jesus, his plain words are, unless you believe this about me, you will die in your sin. So our beliefs about Christ are relevant to all that because Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Now, how that's going to play out in every particular case?

I don't need to be God. I'm just trying to be faithful to God. I don't need to know everything God knows, but I want to be responsive to convey what he has revealed. Oh, the binary. It's not static. So there is progress and growth. So I do see a binary.

I do think ultimately each human being at any given moment either is in a state of reconciliation to God or alienation from God. I just think that's how the scripture speaks. I think that's how Jesus spoke, where, you know, you're either gathering or scattering to use Jesus's imagery. And I actually agree. That doesn't mean that whichever side you're on, you're sort of in the exact same position as every other person or something like that.

Jesus can speak of people and say, you're not far from the kingdom of God. So I do agree that there can be sort of progress and so on and so forth. But ultimately, I feel my responsibility as a minister of the gospel is to be clear about where that threshold is, where that crossing the Rubicon is. And I would just say, I think, an accurate conception of the God to whom we pray and worship is a part of that crossing that threshold. And I think there we're in hopefully maybe in further conversation, we'll need to keep unpacking just the nature of divinity itself because I think the Mormon ideas as I

understand them I haven't pressed into that in this conversation because I'm a beginner at understanding your views on this thing but it seems to me to be pretty widely deviant of historic Christianity which is where when I'm saying hey unfortunately we have a we have a barrier here unfortunately I can I can understand that that's an unpleasant thing but I don't think it should be a surprising thing given the gargantuan differences of just the basic question of what is god and and what is reality i mean we are really coming from a different paradigm so it's not shocking that are those different paradigms are going to play out into different views

of what it means to be saved final comment is or on my side and then i'll give it to you for any final thoughts or even flagging things you want to you want to return to it in the future is in all of this i am not speaking from the standpoint of someone who is smart enough to know the truth about these things. Who am I? I don't know, God. You know, I'm just tiny little me. I am seeking to be responsive to divine revelation. I am trying to be faithful to what I'm seeing in the scripture, in the life of Jesus. So my conception of God as creator, my conception of creation next knee, my conception of what are angels, what is physical reality, what is the last judgment, all of that. I'm trying to be faithful to the scriptures. And even within that, focusing on the main points of the scriptures,

there's lots of little details that might just come up over here in the book of Daniel or over there in the book of Revelation, trying to focus on the main things. One of those main things, I think, straight from the mouth and vocal cords of Christ himself is it's urgently imperative to respond to Christ and to respond to him for who he actually is. I know we differ in our views of that, but I think we could agree and to some extent seem to agree that our perception of Jesus is profoundly urgently relevant according to Jesus himself. I mean, I've kind of camped out on John 824, but I would say that's one text that actually is a thread all throughout John's gospel. I mentioned response to Thomas and how Jesus calls that and classifies that.

But really, the I am statements, every single I am statement in John is pregnant with meaning. And I think Jesus is saying, this is who I am, and you need to believe in this person specifically. So to my mind, accuracy in theology about Jesus is very much baked into, this more existential relationship we have to the light. And do we, do we want God? Do we want the light? And those kinds of things. It's all kind of flowing together from my vantage point. I said a lot there. Let me give you any final comments. I told you I need to take my son to. Yeah, no, you got to run. I just would say this, that when I look at the Gospels, I see Jesus teaching people not about theology. Theological debates were ultimately things that were

later on. I do believe that theology matters. I'm not saying that it doesn't. I believe that Jesus is fully God, but I do not believe that it is possible to reconcile some of these notions about the oneness of Jesus and the Father in this homooseous sense that the Trinity lays out. I personally just can't make sense of it. And so to, from a latter-day saint perspective, to say that I have to embrace a doctrine that or that is not explicitly laid out in scripture and that my salvation pins on that is something that just seems out of character for what Jesus prioritized. I would say, though, that I really do think that that theology matters in the sense that it's important to understand what Jesus' role is and why you should follow him. Understanding every

aspect of his nature and character, honestly, I've had more than enough Christians tell me that God is a mystery and that you can't know everything about his nature. And I agree with that to a certain extent. But then it's sort of like, well, yeah, that means you can't ever fully like know Sally, right? To some extent. And so, again, when it comes down to our Latter-day Saints, Christians, I actually think you're correct in saying, we're not creedal Christians. We don't hold to the same sort of creedal notions about God. And so in that aspect, I'm fine with making that distinction. But I do think that for people to question the salvation of Latter-day Saints because of a theological understanding of a doctrine that many people struggle to understand themselves, it just seems a bit harsh.

Now I do want to say, though, this kind of last thing, thank you so much for talking to me. You know what I mean? I actually think that these kind of conversations are very helpful because I think, if nothing else, we've opened up a door to a whole bunch of other things that I think we could get into. The problem is that the nature of God, that's a giant conversation that we could have, the subject of the Trinity in more detail. Like we didn't really get into what is the Trinity and is it coherent and does it align with scripture, all those kinds of things.

We've talked more about sort of the balance. of orthodoxy within sort of the Christian tradition, I think. But I really do appreciate you taking the time to do this, Gavin. Yeah, no, I appreciate to you. Let's keep talking. God bless you. If anyone in the comments is watching this video named Cynthia or Sally, let us know in the comments, and sorry for using you as an example. I don't know why those names came to me, but, and I promise I'd give you the last word, so I'll just let your comments be the closure there, except to agree with your sentiment of let's keep the conversation going. I think just talking to two, people rather than about people.

You've expressed a concern that that can happen. I think you're right about that. We don't talk to people enough. We talk about people more. But the conversations to each other are also challenging. I mean, it's been like, man, this is, we're talking about, you know, really significant things. But if nothing else, let's just keep talking and keep the dialogue going.

And so I'm really grateful for you and to have a friendship and dialogue and communication and we'll keep it going. I would love to do another one. Let's talk about divinity and creation and all these things. I would like to learn more about Mormonism along the way. So, yeah, it'll be good. All right. God bless you, Jacob.

Thanks a lot. Thanks, Gavin. Thanks, everybody for watching. We'll see you in the next one.