Great job guys. I’ve been an active Latter-Day Saint my entire life. I currently teach gospel classes every day to high school kids before school. These are similar to questions the kids ask me. Great job of answering questions with love, acceptance, and respect.
Great video. This kind of conversation seems very unique and special to me. You both are knowledgeable and able to give accurate info about yourselves, curious about each other and really listening, and un-threatened when the other person isn't immediately persuaded to become like you. I suspect this content will end up being a great educational tool, 1) to help people learn some facts, and 2) to give role models about what it means to be kind and curious and open. Thank you both and please keep it up.
You did great! This was fun. 😊 The question I have is, why are Protestants scared of Latter-day saints? Some of them literally seem terrified to touch a Book of Mormon or to attend a church service. I find it strange because I don't agree with the doctrine of other churches, but I still am curious about them. I don't fear them. Also, have you acclimated to being among all the saints yet? Lol. Are you dying to return to a protestant majority area? 😊
@@gwengold8154it’s not fear. It’s just that the BoM is seen as either complete fiction or a satanic/demonic distortion designed to deceive. Or both I suppose. The curiosity is centered more around disbelief in how Mormons could be so deceived rather than centered around a scripture that is a well woven tapestry of other works, 1769 KJV, etc. Mormon Discussions had some great detail on several of these influences in their latest episode debunking the second chapter of the recently launched fledgling light and truth letter.
Imagine the rift in my family when I left the church of Christ, in which my father was the minister of a congregation, to follow my heart and faith to join the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My sister, evangelical, went to all my family and preached anti-Mormon content. I’m so grateful and feel blessed that there has been a softening.
Wow, so impressed how Kurt Franken was able to articulate latter-day Saint beliefs and practices. Also, Pastor Jeff does a great job explaining his faith practices and helping us to understand Evangelical culture and perspectives. Absolutely loved this podcast.
Also, I want to thank y'all so much for doing this video! It's great how you really care for and respect one another! This was a great way to help explain how each group believes and practices. Beautifully done!
Thanks so much for tackling these difficult questions! Latter-day Saint here, excited to hear your conversations about Evangelical approaches and contexts. Thanks so much for all you do.
Loved this! I’m am evangelical who speaks in tongues but I don’t believe it is a requirement for salvation. Also love Latter Day Saints and believe they will be saved if they believe that Jesus is God and Savior and try to live a holy life aka have a personal relationship with Jesus
Can I ask you a question that I hope won't offend? Can people understand what you are talking about when you speak in tongues? It seems like the word of God should edify all, and how can it if no one else knows what is being said?
29:11 YOM is the word for “day” or “month” or “year” or “eon” in Hebrew. Translating it as “day” in English is one example where evangelical tradition falls flat. There is so much depth to understanding God’s purposes taking a LONG time.
We do genealogy research also to find out more regarding who we are and to turn our hearts to our forefathers and their hearts to us, their children, as was taught in the Old Testament, Malachi 4.
I would throw in a comment on the bicycle for missionaries. I see a similar thing with some cities' police departments, it helps connect with people when you are out biking around instead of speeding down the road in a car. I was lucky to meet many wonderful people on the side of the road or in a neighborhood because I was on a bike.
I was going through a faith crisis when i watched Under the Banner of Heaven and it actually was part of what kept me in the church. It was mildly entertaining, but it was such a ludicrous take on church history that I was able to see problems in arguments against the church a little better. It didn't bring me back, but it was the first time an Anti-Mormon production actually brought me closer to belief.
...we watched that too. It was a good example of how one can take their religion too far. We are not part of the LDS faith anymore but it is still interesting to see the different off-shoots from the origianl Joseph Smith LDS.
About speaking in tongues, Latter Day Saints generally believe that the gift of tongues that a person can understand a person speaking in a language that he does not speak or understand is understood by the other person through the Holy Ghost . Just speaking "jibberish". not understood by anyone is not tongues. It needs to be understood by someone .
Brigham Young did a ton of speaking in tongues when he joined the church. It was a huge part of our early culture, during Kirtland times especially. But what you're describing is the modern understanding of the gift of tongues; the early Saints understood it differently. They did indeed speak languages that aren't spoken on this earth. Multiple times in the School of the Prophets someone would stand up and speak in what probably would sound like gibberish to us, but then someone else like Joseph or Brigham would stand up and say something like, "He just spoke in the Adamic language, and this is what it meant". The language of Adam, and also the language of Enoch were both spoke in the School of the Prophets. To modern people, this is very weird. The modern church also has kind of distanced itself from speaking in tongues, and explains the gift of tongues in different ways, like being able to learn a language on your mission. I'm not saying that is wrong, but you truly have to understand the history behind speaking in tongues in order to speak on this topic with any bit of authority. Modern day Saints don't speak in "gibberish", but the early Saints DID! And it was normal back then!
This was so good! I loved the humor that y’all have with each other!!! So many take stuff like this too seriously 😂. As a pentecostal within the Assemblies of God you represented the pentecostal community well 👏. I also want to point out that a lot of people outside of the Assemblies of God, church of God, & 4 square churches (pentecostal denominations) don’t believe that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. But as a member of the Assemblies of God church…I do believe that it is the initial physical evidence. ☺️
About garments,....We don't wear them when swimming, but do wear them when working out. We are supposed to wear them night and day except for swimming. They are also a help to keep us modestly dressed. We don't look for occasions to not wear them. Even on hot days mowing the lawn, for example, we should wear them even if it is not comfortable. They have symbols on them that remind us of covenants we have made with God, also. It is not a do whatever you want thing. Just clarifying. It is a sacred reminder of covenants made with God.
@johnwgarrett1 I think that it's simply because swimming suits aren't modest enough to wear them and not have them showing. If we adopted the swimming habits of the orthodox Jewish community, then we could.
There is a lot of your own interpretation in this phrase, it feels like. The official statement by the First Presidency is: “You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible”. The rest - is between you and the Lord.
To many look for reasons not to wear them. I love and treasure my garment I wear them always except when swimming or intimacy and always put them on as soon as possible. Greatful for them. A beautiful reminder of my coven-ace I have made.
@@wayneorr6748 as soon as we start talking about “too many”, we are in a judging mode. We have a commandment against that as well. But for some reason we too often feel justified judging others around us. I would leave it to the Lord.
I was a little disappointed with how casual he was about the temple garment. We make a covenant to wear the garment throughout our lives and are promised it will be a "shield and a protection" to us. The garment is a symbol of the both the coat of skins Adam and Eve were given in the garden and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. When we wear it we are sending an outward message to God that we accept the sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf and that we remember Him. That'a a VERY serious covenant and promise to remember what Jesus did for us. "It's not like a fanatical thing..." sounds to me to be minimizing it. We should be cautious of that. Do I wear my garment in the pool? No. Do I wear it literally every other hour of the day and night? Yes! Including during exercise.
...I agree he did sound a bit casual about it, like yah I just put them back on. I though, ohh this is more serious than that but I think he didn't want to come across as some weirdo so he was sort of downplaying it. Just my take on it.
Little correction at 21:13: N. T. Wright's Anglicanism is known as the Episcopal church in America, not Presbyterian. (Interestingly, though, _episkopos_ and _presbyteros_ have a degree of synonymity in the NT.)
Part of the reasoning for genealogy, on top of keeping families eternally sealed, is that it also helps in the gathering of the house of Israel giving all mankind the opportunity to be a part of the everlasting covenant.
At 40:52, my mom grew up in the Assembly of God Church and never got baptized because she never spoke in tongues and the first question she asked the missionaries when they taught my family was if she needed to speak in tongues to be baptized because she didn't do that.
I believe Jesus outlines the end times really well in Matthew 24....that saints will go through tribulation (even great) before being caught up with Christ in the clouds.
Not listened through yet, but I think the answer to the why genealogy question was abbreviated. Then again, I think I’m going a step beyond and answering the question of why do we perform baptism (and other saving ordinances) for the dead? Here’s my take: In the bible, Christ commands us to be baptized of water and of the holy spirit [or else we] cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) This leaves Christianity with the quandary of what is the fate of the unevangelized? Are they going to hell because they weren’t baptized, and hadn’t even known they were supposed to? Is God failing to bring these souls to Him? Have they been predetermined that they won’t be saved? If someone goes to the “wrong” church and didn’t receive the “right” (or authorized) baptism, is that person damned for eternity? After death but before the resurrection and final judgment there is still a space for souls to accept and choose Christ as their Savior and Redeemer. This baptism is still a necessary ordinance, which is why we perform baptisms for the dead. The result isn’t that these then are members of our church like we’re competing for statistics (Hey we’re at 3 billion baptized members now, how are you doing?? 😜) - the baptismal covenant is about binding that soul with Christ, and still defers to the agency of that soul.
15:10 I know Kurt meant well, but he sort of giggled through references to violence against Latter-day Saints; I think viewers could have benefited from hearing a serious answer.
Our garments and other outward covenant are expressions of inward spiritual commitments that do not buy our way into heaven. Brad Wilcox gave the analogy of piano lessons. The lessons are paid for, but God gives us commandments and expects us to practice. Having paid the price, Jesus has every right to set expectations. We are not earning we are learning. To become more like Christ, we must live like him and follow him. That is the purpose of covenants. I don't think this was discussed, but it's a common misconception. The price is paid, but we know that Jesus asks us to follow him, practice, and become more like Him through following Him. They are special and sacred expressions of very deep spiritual commitments.
It can be. I know people personally whose garment acted as a literal shield and protection. One was hit by lightning and scars only showed where his garments were not.
It could happen but we don't use it for "physical protection". We use it because it is a symbol of our covenants with Christ and said covenants are the ones that protect us more often than not from temptation and evil... I think it is easy to forget that Christ is the one that protects us and without the covenant there is no protection. The garment itself holds no protection on its own. Just like without Christ there is no atonement.
Yeah the church use to teach it was for physical protection, Which I believe it can be a literal physical protection for you. They have watered it down a bit on the garments if people only think its a symbol they are sadly mistaken
Why would God only want to protect what the garment covers and not the arms, hands, head, and feet? I would say it definitely includes physical protection when we are faithful to our covenants, but is a symbol and more wholistic than the physical garment and what it specifically covers.
Hi, non-dispensationalist evangelical here! Wanted to point out that "replacement theology" is generally an accidental straw man of covenant theology. There are certainly people who misunderstand covenant theology and believe in replacement theology, but it isn't the traditional view. Those who hold to covenant theology would argue that true Israel was always defined by faith. So before Christ, in the nation of Israel, it would still be accurate to say that "not all people descended from Israel are true members of God's people", as Paul writes of the Israel of his time in Romans.
@@natewxlfe This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. This was the first I'd ever heard of replacement theory or theology. I was quite shocked. I appreciated your expounding upon it.
@ Glad I could help! Dispensational theology really didn’t come onto the scene until Darby in the mid-19th century, so pretty much everybody in church history before that held some form of covenant theology. Just worth being aware that it’s a kind of catch-all term. Presbyterian covenant theology differs from Baptist covenant theology a bit, I can’t attest to many others.
We believe that everyone is a spirit child of God. Some in preearth love rebelled just as people on earth either accept our Father and Jesus or rebell against him.
Garments are a symbol of our taking upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. They also remind us of the covenants that we have made in the temple. If we are faithful to our covenants, they are a spiritual protection to us.
I loved this video! Also, I think it's hilarious that you pronounce the t in softening. Literally everyone I know (I'm in the mountain west) says "soffening". Is it normal to pronounce the t in the midwest?
Thank you! Jeff, are you familiar with Hal Lindsey who wrote Late Great Planet Earth? He graduated from Dallas Seminary and wrote some wonderful books. He loved eschatology. My husband came to know Jesus reading his books.
@@coxrocks25 just saying there’s plenty of scenarios where missionaries regularly bike around that are not 3rd world. I biked almost everywhere on my mission in Southwest England and South Wales
@paskintexas I didn't say they didn't bike in other parts of the world. It's just in the video he implied that he didn't think we biked in the third world countries much. I said I think we biked more than the US missions
I have a question. In an earlier discussion (I don't know which one or who was the other participant) you were discussing Genesis where it says God created man in His own image. Pastor Jeff said that Episcopalians do not believe that. Instead you believed you are image bearers. I didn't understand that. What or whose image do you bear? It can't be God's or Jesus' because they are one being without bodies.
That was really interesting about the pre tribulation vs. post tribulation ideas about the rapture. I've heard David Alexander bring these up before, but I never knew what he meant. There was speaking in tongues reported at the dedication of the Kirtland temple. It was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that equaled or surpassed the day of pentacost in the Bible.
Rapture is just the term they give for Saints caught up in the heavens to herald in his coming, which is something we do believe in/teach in the LDS faith.
@candicesummers5427 Thanks. I've always thought that we believe in the rapture, too. The 7 year period was new to me, though. I didn't realize that there were so many differing views on it.
Yeah, dad's mission companion got shot in Australia. Bullet went through suit and blew up on hitting his garments... not the point, but miracles happen when you have faith.
God's words of course are not limited to a Bible. John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
23:02 - I’m not sure why Kurt framed the idea that Latter-day Saints believe Satan is our brother or that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. In my entire life in the Church, and as someone who reads a lot of books, I’ve never seen Latter-day Saints attempt to position Satan as our brother or as somehow equal to Jesus. We believe Jesus is the Eternal God and in no way comparable to Satan. That framing comes from longstanding anti-Mormon evangelical accusations that stretch the idea of a pre-existence into a claim that Jesus and Satan were equals. Unfortunately, Latter-day Saints sometimes fall into “reactive positioning,” mounting apologetics for a belief we don’t actually hold. I was disappointed with Kurt’s comments on this topic and about Satan in general. They felt more like a rehearsal of primary-level teachings than a thoughtful or informed response.
@@TheMightyJor We have to give Kurt a break. He stumbled over deuterocanonical. He's clearly not a scholar. He's a regular guy trying to keep things light. I think that he did a pretty good job overall.
@ Nothing against him personally, but if Kurt isn’t equipped to answer questions about Latter-day Saints at a level that Jeff is able to answer questions about Evangelicals, maybe its better to find a better LDS representative. This is one of the problems with allowing LDS content creator be the representatives.
Brothers =/= Equals. By literal definition, yes Jesus and Lucifer and you and I are all brothers. We are all children of God, literally. We are also eternal beings that have been with God since the beginning of time. This is no contradiction. But it is true that Jesus is and has always been more intelligent and powerful than us. See the Book of Abraham for more information.
In the D&C we read about how the Son of the Morning (Lucifer) fell, and how all of heaven wept for him. He is a literal son of God, and it was a sad thing to see him rebel. In that way, as we are also children of God, he is our brother. We don't make a huge deal out of this or ever talk about it, though. I don't know why Evangelicals make this into a big deal or act like it is a huge part of our church services.
@Misa_Susaki The reason they make such a big deal out of it is due to the ontological pedestal the Trinity is placed on in their interpretation of the Biblical texts. No other being, be they mortal, angel, demon, or any subspecies of those broader categories, is, can ever, nor ever will be equal or of the same kind as the three persons of the Trinity.
We should not look for reasons to take our garments off. They are reminders that we are bound to God and our covenants never take a day off 😊 yes, it's down to the individual and God, but general guidelines say to wear them night and day. 😊
I concur. I didn't like the " we're not really fanatical about it " comment. I don't like to have my garments off. I know that orthodox Jewish people still wear those swimming suits that cover the whole body. There's something beautiful about that.
Ive often wondered whether "speaking in tongues" may also include the aspect of, when we become Christians, we say things we havent said before...the way we BELIEVE in Father God, Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit as being the completeness of God...we speak of Him having come to save us...we speak of worshipping Him even in times of trouble and distress, we say He died to save us from our sins, and so many other things. I did not say those things before i became a Christian, so you could certainly say i speak a new language. Very new Christians might not understand these things, so explanation would be required. Non-Christians would just call us crazy...they would say we are speaking "gibberish"...something similar to saying we are drunk. For these reasons, it seems we may include this when we consider speaking in tongues...it's the Christian Language.
Do the Deuterocanonical books include the book of Deuteronomy? Several scholars believe that Deuteronomy was not originally part of the Old Testament but added/or altered around 650-600 BC by King Josiah of the Judah Kingdom. It replaced the 5th book of Moses that was originally part of the Pentatoch.
Americans believe things their govt wants them to believe. It helps if their accepted religion is kosher with that paradigm. I think God loves the arabs too. When Israel relies on Jehovah, and not the US, for their support amazing things will happen. In the Old testament they really never lost their love affair with Egypt but they found that was the wrong bet. King Hezekiah bought his people, as a davidic servant type, a hundred years more escaping Assyria but Babylon eventually took them. Maybe those temple reformations weren't as holy as the deuteronomists and the king james translators would have us believe.
I’m learning a lot about where Pastor Jeff is coming from through this. I had a hint somewhere when he said in another video “my wife and I are pastors” (plural) that Jeff takes a non-literal view of Scripture. So that carries through his eschatology and his Genesis beliefs. The problem with a non-literal view of Scripture, of course, is where does it end? Does it end with Jesus as not-literally One with the Father? Maybe that might be where this is all going. The “Non-salvivic” column becomes very very long.
Kurt: You said we don't teach about the "rapture" in church. We don't refer to it as that, but instead use the terminology of being "caught up". Please tell me your ward doesn't skip over 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, D&C 88:96, and D&C 109:75.
Make a game show style video where you debate: Which is weirder? Latter-Day Saints or Latter-Day Saint teachings? I love Latter-Day Saints and Latter-Day Saint teachings, but there is a right answer to this question. It’s shows like the wired autocomplete interview that answer the hard-hitting questions like this.
10:37 folklore doesn’t just come from no where. Believe in miracles. Folklore often comes from true miracles. Don’t disregard it. I know someone who was struck by lightning and his garment areas were the only areas not burned by the strike.
@zionmama150 I agree about miracles. They haven't ceased. However, it is wisdom to exercise caution and not be reckless because you believe that you are bulletproof. You know what I mean? I remember people who behaved recklessly and died, and the ward would all say it was that person's " time to go." My beloved father would scoff at that sentiment. He made certain that we knew that the Lord expects us to be wise and behave wisely.
We belong to the "Church of Jesus Christ" and are considered the "Saints" or the "Deciples" of Jesus Christ in the "latter days" before His second coming.
The philospophical question regarding the pre-mortal life is simple: If God didn't have children before, why would He want children now? If God's children didn't exist before, a loving perfect all knowing God wouldn't invent/create suffering in the form of man ever.
I don't agree with your reasoning. God had to chose when to create mortal humans. It's not Him changing His mind to start something new. I also think God's goal in allowing suffering is to overcome suffering and let humans access perfect joy.
@_Squiggle_ you agree then that God created suffering from nothing? In old Christianity God has a Family. Dr. Margaret Barker, a Methodist scholar, though not very popular among today's Professors of Religion, reads the old books and archeology. The LDS believe these things because of modern revelation but there's still plenty in the king James Bible to make you think if you want to and again, I say, a loving God would not create suffering from nothing.
Not doctrine butI have a theory: Is it possible they dinosaurs existed while Adam and Eve were in the Garden died out either before or after The Fall? If I understand correctly, they were immortal before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Meaning they did not begin to age until then. In that case Adam and Eve could have lived in the garden for an unknown amount of time, perhaps hundreds or thousands of years or even longer before being cast out of the garden and became immortal bringing death into the the world. Maybe outside of the garden animals and plants could have continued to live and reproduce before the fall. Could this be an explanation that can harmonise the age of the earth between science and the scriptures? That is If the age of the earth according to the Bible began after The Fall when mortality began. Could that explain dinosaurs and fissils. On another note, I recent thought that the explanations of ancient human or humanlike fossils could be from inbreeding or some disabilities that deformed some bone shapes, or just be a different race instead of species. Another theory about evolution, I have heard someone say is that maybe God used it as part of the method of creation. Or example the book of Genesis shows a sequential creative process starting with plants then animals and lastly man. From what we know, Adam was the first one crated in God's image. I also have heard they the number of days to create the earth and all the life on it could have either been literal 24 hour days or just a metaphor for periods of time or epocs that could have been for much longer. For example could "one day on earth could be the same as thousands of years in heaven." Reminder, these are just thoughts and ideas I have heard and have speculation as possible explanations, not doctrine or anything that has been taught in church.
Disregard the username: If you do more history on the church, look up Casey Griffiths. He’s an institute teacher at BYU, he also was my bishop growing up.
Just looked up your scripture and it seems to be saying the opposite of what you claim? John worships an angel and the angel says to worship God instead
As already pointed out, the passage referenced talks about worship going to God, rather than a created being, such as the angel (or in the initial post man). Prayers to the Saints, and angels, are not prayers of worship, as that is reserved only for God, but rather asking for their help. Asking them to ask God for something on our behalf, much like we would do with a friend. This doesn’t replace asking God directly, but is meant to be done as help for gaining that which is being prayed for. As we are told in Scripture, the prayers of a righteous man availeth much (paraphrase of James 5:16). And you can’t get more righteous than being in the presence of God, which is what a Saint in this regard is.
@@kennethbergstrom3383 , thanks for sharing your point of view on the subject. The scriptures obviously talk about angels and past saints ministering and helping other people. I interpret the scriptures as teaching that the angels were sent as a result of praying to God. I don’t see God’s power being given as a result of praying for help from an angel, unless the angel was already there as a result of being sent from God as a result of having directly prayed to him. Do Catholics ever bow down in prayer to the Saints?
I disagree with the statement of not being fanatical about the wearing of the garment. It should be worn all the time unless we are participating in a sport like swimming, playing basketball where the sporting clothes doesn't cover it. Bathing we don't wear the garments. I play golf and wear shorts that are long enough to cover the garment. We have been told not to modify the garment so we can wear clothing that doesn't cover the garment. I would say it is a symbol of out faith.
Perhaps not a popular comment here but why does Jeff continue to use the term Mormon/Mormonism in his conversation and title post descriptions? As a lifelong member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints I have never identified as Mormon or a believer in Mormonism. I am grateful President Nelson clarified our identity and am hopeful members of our faith and others will please stop using these slanderous terms. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints is the Lords church and the members are disciples and followers of Christ, NOT Mormon. I find those who abandon their faith or passively attack the church use these terms (Mormon/Mormonism) to dismiss the faith with ease. If they said I left the church of Jesus Christ or don’t agree with the doctrine found in the church that bears his name it would not roll off their lips so easily.
💯 In my whole life, I never once self-identified as a " Mormon." These days, it's getting easy to tell who's anti and who's not just by use of that term.
@@gwengold8154 Curious, are you in the US? I was raised in California in the 80’s and 90’s and nobody referred to themselves as Mormon. I did notice members from Utah bring it up and when President Hinckley wanted members to sign up for I’m a Mormon account I could not do it and that was a low point in my faith journey.
@LeastofThese_R_US Don't feel badly. I think the whole " I'm a Mormon" campaign was folly. I remember going around to anyone who would listen in the church and railing against it. They just rolled their eyes at me. Lol. I said that I would NEVER be in those films! ( not that they ever wanted me to be, lol) Yes, I'm in the United States. Lots of the people around me were okay with the label " Mormon," but I never was. I think it's the single greatest thing President Nelson has done as president of the church to move us away from that and back to what the Lord said that we should be called.
@LeastofThese_R_US Pastor Jeff mentions in the video that most people in the world still know us as " Mormons. " Maybe that's why he's continuing to use the title. I don't like it, but it's not my channel. I remember a general conference talk that Elder Ballard gave that was along those same lines. It was a bit schizophrenic to be honest. He said that we should use the correct name of the church but that the world was essentially never going to stop calling us " Mormons," so we needed to use that to be known. I honestly never liked that talk.
At what point does flirting with a "different Jesus" begin to affect the gospel and the believer? I know you are friendly and looking to learn about the LDS, but at what cost to the young believer watching who may be swayed by "every wind of doctrine?" Is your intent to record your discussions or share with the world..... As a shepherd you have some accountability.
The church has no official position regarding evolution, but leadership over time, have sad some very decisive things about the theory of evolution standing in direct contradiction to the plan of salvation and the Atonement of Christ.
None. Polygamy is the unauthorized use of plural marriage, which as far as the next life we don't know that much about. We know some will be practising it there. Jesus said few will (Mat 7: 14) qualify for that kingdom. Great prophets like Jacob (Israel) will have more than 1 wife there.
@@stephtimms1776 can you clarify your statement that polygamy is the unauthorized use of plural marriage? Most people use those two terms interchangeably.
@@casualobserver9113 the difference is how and when it is practised, and why. When done to obey and glorify God, and under his direction, we call it plural marriage. Other use of it is done by men under their own direction and for their own glory, and is not acceptable to God, in our beliefs.
I am always confused by this topic. Do Evangelicals not believe that Jacob (Israel) had many wives? Was he unrighteous because of it? Do they believe Israel won't be in heaven? I understand that most/all Evangelicals believe that there will be no marriage after this life, but if marriage can be eternal, then it stands to reason that Israel will have more than 1 wife in heaven.
@@casualobserver9113 We believe Sarah & Abraham practised plural marriage under God's direction. This is indicated by her saying to Abraham, my wrong be upon thee (Gen 16: 5) and God backing her up when she said to cast out Hagar and Ishmael for disrespect (Gen 21:12).
The first response is disingenuous in that it is not just their ancestors that LDSers "rebaptize" but every name they can find. See the controversy of baptizing the Jewish victims of the holocaust. Please be honest if you are going to do a program like this. Don't normalize the offensive.
I think he was being honest. All the names that I have done and are doing in the temple are people who are related to me. Eventually, the family lines all run back to Adam and Eve, so I see your concern there. But, we reiterate that this is only an offering. NO ONE is forced to accept it. If they reject it on the other side of the veil, it is null and void. It's similar to if someone gets excommunicated. I don't honestly understand the reaction against it. Either we are totally wrong, and it's just a goofy thing we do. ( wherein is the harm then?) Or, we are correct, and many people might be very grateful for this offering.
@@gwengold8154 I appreciate your answer and accept your attitude about it so thank you. I am not a Mormon but have known them for 40 years and have never met a LDS member that I did not admire. While I can not accept the doctrine of the Restoration I have nothing but admiration for you all!
@@sovstte What a sweet comment. Thank you 😊 The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is not for everyone. What I mean is, it's not everyone's cup of tea. I get that. No worries 🤗 I wish you all the best.
How’d we do? What questions do YOU have?
Great job guys. I’ve been an active Latter-Day Saint my entire life. I currently teach gospel classes every day to high school kids before school. These are similar to questions the kids ask me. Great job of answering questions with love, acceptance, and respect.
Great video. This kind of conversation seems very unique and special to me. You both are knowledgeable and able to give accurate info about yourselves, curious about each other and really listening, and un-threatened when the other person isn't immediately persuaded to become like you. I suspect this content will end up being a great educational tool, 1) to help people learn some facts, and 2) to give role models about what it means to be kind and curious and open. Thank you both and please keep it up.
You did great! This was fun. 😊
The question I have is, why are Protestants scared of Latter-day saints? Some of them literally seem terrified to touch a Book of Mormon or to attend a church service. I find it strange because I don't agree with the doctrine of other churches, but I still am curious about them. I don't fear them.
Also, have you acclimated to being among all the saints yet? Lol. Are you dying to return to a protestant majority area? 😊
You’re amazing, thank you for your knowledge, humbleness before the Lord and willingness to share truth. I love you guys!
@@gwengold8154it’s not fear. It’s just that the BoM is seen as either complete fiction or a satanic/demonic distortion designed to deceive. Or both I suppose. The curiosity is centered more around disbelief in how Mormons could be so deceived rather than centered around a scripture that is a well woven tapestry of other works, 1769 KJV, etc. Mormon Discussions had some great detail on several of these influences in their latest episode debunking the second chapter of the recently launched fledgling light and truth letter.
Imagine the rift in my family when I left the church of Christ, in which my father was the minister of a congregation, to follow my heart and faith to join the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My sister, evangelical, went to all my family and preached anti-Mormon content. I’m so grateful and feel blessed that there has been a softening.
@@KristaLinford Wow, Krista. You are so inspiring ❤️!!! I don't know if I would have courage like that. God bless you 🙏
Wow, so impressed how Kurt Franken was able to articulate latter-day Saint beliefs and practices. Also, Pastor Jeff does a great job explaining his faith practices and helping us to understand Evangelical culture and perspectives. Absolutely loved this podcast.
Kurt and Jeff's friendship is delightfully wholesome.
Also, I want to thank y'all so much for doing this video! It's great how you really care for and respect one another! This was a great way to help explain how each group believes and practices. Beautifully done!
Thanks so much for tackling these difficult questions! Latter-day Saint here, excited to hear your conversations about Evangelical approaches and contexts. Thanks so much for all you do.
That was fun. I bet you guys could do that again!
Loved this! I’m am evangelical who speaks in tongues but I don’t believe it is a requirement for salvation. Also love Latter Day Saints and believe they will be saved if they believe that Jesus is God and Savior and try to live a holy life aka have a personal relationship with Jesus
I am a Latter-Day Saint and I want to thank you for this comment.
PS we feel the same way about you.
Can I ask you a question that I hope won't offend? Can people understand what you are talking about when you speak in tongues? It seems like the word of God should edify all, and how can it if no one else knows what is being said?
You mean you say random gibberish?
@@lubago thank you for your kindness.
I love this conversation! I've always believed that Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints are far closer in their beliefs than either party may realize!❤
29:11 YOM is the word for “day” or “month” or “year” or “eon” in Hebrew. Translating it as “day” in English is one example where evangelical tradition falls flat. There is so much depth to understanding God’s purposes taking a LONG time.
We do genealogy research also to find out more regarding who we are and to turn our hearts to our forefathers and their hearts to us, their children, as was taught in the Old Testament, Malachi 4.
I vote for episode 2 and episode 3 of this format ✅
I would throw in a comment on the bicycle for missionaries. I see a similar thing with some cities' police departments, it helps connect with people when you are out biking around instead of speeding down the road in a car. I was lucky to meet many wonderful people on the side of the road or in a neighborhood because I was on a bike.
Garments are a reminder that we are “putting on Christ.”
I appreciate both the polite conversation and the candor at the same time.
I was going through a faith crisis when i watched Under the Banner of Heaven and it actually was part of what kept me in the church. It was mildly entertaining, but it was such a ludicrous take on church history that I was able to see problems in arguments against the church a little better. It didn't bring me back, but it was the first time an Anti-Mormon production actually brought me closer to belief.
...we watched that too. It was a good example of how one can take their religion too far. We are not part of the LDS faith anymore but it is still interesting to see the different off-shoots from the origianl Joseph Smith LDS.
About speaking in tongues, Latter Day Saints generally believe that the gift of tongues that a person can understand a person speaking in a language that he does not speak or understand is understood by the other person through the Holy Ghost . Just speaking "jibberish". not understood by anyone is not tongues. It needs to be understood by someone .
Brigham Young did a ton of speaking in tongues when he joined the church. It was a huge part of our early culture, during Kirtland times especially.
But what you're describing is the modern understanding of the gift of tongues; the early Saints understood it differently. They did indeed speak languages that aren't spoken on this earth. Multiple times in the School of the Prophets someone would stand up and speak in what probably would sound like gibberish to us, but then someone else like Joseph or Brigham would stand up and say something like, "He just spoke in the Adamic language, and this is what it meant".
The language of Adam, and also the language of Enoch were both spoke in the School of the Prophets. To modern people, this is very weird. The modern church also has kind of distanced itself from speaking in tongues, and explains the gift of tongues in different ways, like being able to learn a language on your mission. I'm not saying that is wrong, but you truly have to understand the history behind speaking in tongues in order to speak on this topic with any bit of authority. Modern day Saints don't speak in "gibberish", but the early Saints DID! And it was normal back then!
This was so good! I loved the humor that y’all have with each other!!! So many take stuff like this too seriously 😂. As a pentecostal within the Assemblies of God you represented the pentecostal community well 👏. I also want to point out that a lot of people outside of the Assemblies of God, church of God, & 4 square churches (pentecostal denominations) don’t believe that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. But as a member of the Assemblies of God church…I do believe that it is the initial physical evidence. ☺️
About garments,....We don't wear them when swimming, but do wear them when working out. We are supposed to wear them night and day except for swimming. They are also a help to keep us modestly dressed. We don't look for occasions to not wear them.
Even on hot days mowing the lawn, for example, we should wear them even if it is not comfortable. They have symbols on them that remind us of covenants we have made with God, also.
It is not a do whatever you want thing. Just clarifying.
It is a sacred reminder of covenants made with God.
Why not when swimming?
@johnwgarrett1 I think that it's simply because swimming suits aren't modest enough to wear them and not have them showing. If we adopted the swimming habits of the orthodox Jewish community, then we could.
There is a lot of your own interpretation in this phrase, it feels like. The official statement by the First Presidency is: “You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible”. The rest - is between you and the Lord.
To many look for reasons not to wear them. I love and treasure my garment I wear them always except when swimming or intimacy and always put them on as soon as possible. Greatful for them. A beautiful reminder of my coven-ace I have made.
@@wayneorr6748 as soon as we start talking about “too many”, we are in a judging mode. We have a commandment against that as well. But for some reason we too often feel justified judging others around us. I would leave it to the Lord.
32:12 Thank you, Pastor Jeff!!!!! ❤
This was entertaining. I'd watch something like this again. 😄
Really enjoyed that friendly discussion with you 2 gentlemen. Great friendly humour. God bless you both❤😊
I've never been this early!! Hi Jeff! Happy December to you and your family. I'm sure this will be another great video.
I was a little disappointed with how casual he was about the temple garment. We make a covenant to wear the garment throughout our lives and are promised it will be a "shield and a protection" to us. The garment is a symbol of the both the coat of skins Adam and Eve were given in the garden and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. When we wear it we are sending an outward message to God that we accept the sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf and that we remember Him. That'a a VERY serious covenant and promise to remember what Jesus did for us. "It's not like a fanatical thing..." sounds to me to be minimizing it. We should be cautious of that. Do I wear my garment in the pool? No. Do I wear it literally every other hour of the day and night? Yes! Including during exercise.
...I agree he did sound a bit casual about it, like yah I just put them back on. I though, ohh this is more serious than that but I think he didn't want to come across as some weirdo so he was sort of downplaying it. Just my take on it.
Little correction at 21:13: N. T. Wright's Anglicanism is known as the Episcopal church in America, not Presbyterian. (Interestingly, though, _episkopos_ and _presbyteros_ have a degree of synonymity in the NT.)
this is great! discussion wow how rare
Part of the reasoning for genealogy, on top of keeping families eternally sealed, is that it also helps in the gathering of the house of Israel giving all mankind the opportunity to be a part of the everlasting covenant.
I love this!! Y'all are kinda funny😊😊
Really good!! ❤❤
At 40:52, my mom grew up in the Assembly of God Church and never got baptized because she never spoke in tongues and the first question she asked the missionaries when they taught my family was if she needed to speak in tongues to be baptized because she didn't do that.
...is speaking in tongues required before you can be baptized in the Assembly of God Church?
I served my mission in Sacramento as well!
I believe Jesus outlines the end times really well in Matthew 24....that saints will go through tribulation (even great) before being caught up with Christ in the clouds.
Not listened through yet, but I think the answer to the why genealogy question was abbreviated. Then again, I think I’m going a step beyond and answering the question of why do we perform baptism (and other saving ordinances) for the dead? Here’s my take:
In the bible, Christ commands us to be baptized of water and of the holy spirit [or else we] cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) This leaves Christianity with the quandary of what is the fate of the unevangelized? Are they going to hell because they weren’t baptized, and hadn’t even known they were supposed to? Is God failing to bring these souls to Him? Have they been predetermined that they won’t be saved? If someone goes to the “wrong” church and didn’t receive the “right” (or authorized) baptism, is that person damned for eternity?
After death but before the resurrection and final judgment there is still a space for souls to accept and choose Christ as their Savior and Redeemer. This baptism is still a necessary ordinance, which is why we perform baptisms for the dead. The result isn’t that these then are members of our church like we’re competing for statistics (Hey we’re at 3 billion baptized members now, how are you doing?? 😜) - the baptismal covenant is about binding that soul with Christ, and still defers to the agency of that soul.
15:10 I know Kurt meant well, but he sort of giggled through references to violence against Latter-day Saints; I think viewers could have benefited from hearing a serious answer.
Our garments and other outward covenant are expressions of inward spiritual commitments that do not buy our way into heaven. Brad Wilcox gave the analogy of piano lessons. The lessons are paid for, but God gives us commandments and expects us to practice. Having paid the price, Jesus has every right to set expectations. We are not earning we are learning. To become more like Christ, we must live like him and follow him. That is the purpose of covenants. I don't think this was discussed, but it's a common misconception. The price is paid, but we know that Jesus asks us to follow him, practice, and become more like Him through following Him. They are special and sacred expressions of very deep spiritual commitments.
I believe the garment can also be a physical protection! Just want to say it! And you might be surptised that I don’t think Iam alone!
It can be. I know people personally whose garment acted as a literal shield and protection. One was hit by lightning and scars only showed where his garments were not.
It for sure can.
The garment holds both symbolic power and literal power.
It could happen but we don't use it for "physical protection". We use it because it is a symbol of our covenants with Christ and said covenants are the ones that protect us more often than not from temptation and evil... I think it is easy to forget that Christ is the one that protects us and without the covenant there is no protection. The garment itself holds no protection on its own. Just like without Christ there is no atonement.
Yeah the church use to teach it was for physical protection, Which I believe it can be a literal physical protection for you. They have watered it down a bit on the garments if people only think its a symbol they are sadly mistaken
Why would God only want to protect what the garment covers and not the arms, hands, head, and feet? I would say it definitely includes physical protection when we are faithful to our covenants, but is a symbol and more wholistic than the physical garment and what it specifically covers.
Hi, non-dispensationalist evangelical here! Wanted to point out that "replacement theology" is generally an accidental straw man of covenant theology. There are certainly people who misunderstand covenant theology and believe in replacement theology, but it isn't the traditional view.
Those who hold to covenant theology would argue that true Israel was always defined by faith. So before Christ, in the nation of Israel, it would still be accurate to say that "not all people descended from Israel are true members of God's people", as Paul writes of the Israel of his time in Romans.
@@natewxlfe This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. This was the first I'd ever heard of replacement theory or theology. I was quite shocked. I appreciated your expounding upon it.
@ Glad I could help! Dispensational theology really didn’t come onto the scene until Darby in the mid-19th century, so pretty much everybody in church history before that held some form of covenant theology. Just worth being aware that it’s a kind of catch-all term. Presbyterian covenant theology differs from Baptist covenant theology a bit, I can’t attest to many others.
35:50 we make sure the ordinances are done exact so that the doctrine surrounding them does not change.
...so if the ordinances are done wrong, does that change the doctrine?
The Book of Mormon doesn't say that Jesus and Satan are brothers, but rather that Jesus Christ is God and the Son of God who created all things
We believe that everyone is a spirit child of God. Some in preearth love rebelled just as people on earth either accept our Father and Jesus or rebell against him.
(21:18) Anglican tradition in America are Episcopalian not Presbyterian.
Garments are a symbol of our taking upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. They also remind us of the covenants that we have made in the temple. If we are faithful to our covenants, they are a spiritual protection to us.
I loved this video! Also, I think it's hilarious that you pronounce the t in softening. Literally everyone I know (I'm in the mountain west) says "soffening". Is it normal to pronounce the t in the midwest?
Thank you! Jeff, are you familiar with Hal Lindsey who wrote Late Great Planet Earth? He graduated from Dallas Seminary and wrote some wonderful books. He loved eschatology. My husband came to know Jesus reading his books.
Beware Hal Lindsey. He predicted a date when Christ would return. He was wrong.
Under the banner of heaven... the murderers were excommunicated before the murders happened
Third world countries actually utilize bike probably more than US missions. I served in Uruguay and we were in bikes a lot
@@coxrocks25 third world? Y’all are funny - missionaries in the UK bike (or used to bike) everywhere
@paskintexas you don't think Uruguay is third world? I'm confused...
@@coxrocks25 just saying there’s plenty of scenarios where missionaries regularly bike around that are not 3rd world. I biked almost everywhere on my mission in Southwest England and South Wales
@paskintexas I didn't say they didn't bike in other parts of the world. It's just in the video he implied that he didn't think we biked in the third world countries much. I said I think we biked more than the US missions
20:18 sooooo... how does that fall in with Sola scriptura?
I have a question. In an earlier discussion (I don't know which one or who was the other participant) you were discussing Genesis where it says God created man in His own image. Pastor Jeff said that Episcopalians do not believe that. Instead you believed you are image bearers. I didn't understand that. What or whose image do you bear? It can't be God's or Jesus' because they are one being without bodies.
That was really interesting about the pre tribulation vs. post tribulation ideas about the rapture. I've heard David Alexander bring these up before, but I never knew what he meant.
There was speaking in tongues reported at the dedication of the Kirtland temple. It was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that equaled or surpassed the day of pentacost in the Bible.
Rapture is just the term they give for Saints caught up in the heavens to herald in his coming, which is something we do believe in/teach in the LDS faith.
@candicesummers5427 Thanks. I've always thought that we believe in the rapture, too. The 7 year period was new to me, though. I didn't realize that there were so many differing views on it.
Yeah, dad's mission companion got shot in Australia. Bullet went through suit and blew up on hitting his garments... not the point, but miracles happen when you have faith.
God's words of course are not limited to a Bible.
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
23:02 - I’m not sure why Kurt framed the idea that Latter-day Saints believe Satan is our brother or that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. In my entire life in the Church, and as someone who reads a lot of books, I’ve never seen Latter-day Saints attempt to position Satan as our brother or as somehow equal to Jesus. We believe Jesus is the Eternal God and in no way comparable to Satan.
That framing comes from longstanding anti-Mormon evangelical accusations that stretch the idea of a pre-existence into a claim that Jesus and Satan were equals. Unfortunately, Latter-day Saints sometimes fall into “reactive positioning,” mounting apologetics for a belief we don’t actually hold.
I was disappointed with Kurt’s comments on this topic and about Satan in general. They felt more like a rehearsal of primary-level teachings than a thoughtful or informed response.
@@TheMightyJor We have to give Kurt a break. He stumbled over deuterocanonical. He's clearly not a scholar. He's a regular guy trying to keep things light. I think that he did a pretty good job overall.
@ Nothing against him personally, but if Kurt isn’t equipped to answer questions about Latter-day Saints at a level that Jeff is able to answer questions about Evangelicals, maybe its better to find a better LDS representative.
This is one of the problems with allowing LDS content creator be the representatives.
Brothers =/= Equals.
By literal definition, yes Jesus and Lucifer and you and I are all brothers. We are all children of God, literally. We are also eternal beings that have been with God since the beginning of time. This is no contradiction.
But it is true that Jesus is and has always been more intelligent and powerful than us. See the Book of Abraham for more information.
In the D&C we read about how the Son of the Morning (Lucifer) fell, and how all of heaven wept for him. He is a literal son of God, and it was a sad thing to see him rebel. In that way, as we are also children of God, he is our brother. We don't make a huge deal out of this or ever talk about it, though. I don't know why Evangelicals make this into a big deal or act like it is a huge part of our church services.
@Misa_Susaki The reason they make such a big deal out of it is due to the ontological pedestal the Trinity is placed on in their interpretation of the Biblical texts. No other being, be they mortal, angel, demon, or any subspecies of those broader categories, is, can ever, nor ever will be equal or of the same kind as the three persons of the Trinity.
We should not look for reasons to take our garments off. They are reminders that we are bound to God and our covenants never take a day off 😊 yes, it's down to the individual and God, but general guidelines say to wear them night and day. 😊
I concur. I didn't like the " we're not really fanatical about it " comment. I don't like to have my garments off.
I know that orthodox Jewish people still wear those swimming suits that cover the whole body. There's something beautiful about that.
Why don't fellow Christians call out the Pentecostals for talking random gibberish and claiming it to be from God? Seriously
Many do!!
Whose studio is this? Just curious
There are many different denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. RLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) was one.
Ive often wondered whether "speaking in tongues" may also include the aspect of, when we become Christians, we say things we havent said before...the way we BELIEVE in Father God, Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit as being the completeness of God...we speak of Him having come to save us...we speak of worshipping Him even in times of trouble and distress, we say He died to save us from our sins, and so many other things. I did not say those things before i became a Christian, so you could certainly say i speak a new language.
Very new Christians might not understand these things, so explanation would be required. Non-Christians would just call us crazy...they would say we are speaking "gibberish"...something similar to saying we are drunk. For these reasons, it seems we may include this when we consider speaking in tongues...it's the Christian Language.
Do the Deuterocanonical books include the book of Deuteronomy? Several scholars believe that Deuteronomy was not originally part of the Old Testament but added/or altered around 650-600 BC by King Josiah of the Judah Kingdom. It replaced the 5th book of Moses that was originally part of the Pentatoch.
Americans believe things their govt wants them to believe. It helps if their accepted religion is kosher with that paradigm. I think God loves the arabs too. When Israel relies on Jehovah, and not the US, for their support amazing things will happen. In the Old testament they really never lost their love affair with Egypt but they found that was the wrong bet. King Hezekiah bought his people, as a davidic servant type, a hundred years more escaping Assyria but Babylon eventually took them. Maybe those temple reformations weren't as holy as the deuteronomists and the king james translators would have us believe.
I’m learning a lot about where Pastor Jeff is coming from through this. I had a hint somewhere when he said in another video “my wife and I are pastors” (plural) that Jeff takes a non-literal view of Scripture. So that carries through his eschatology and his Genesis beliefs. The problem with a non-literal view of Scripture, of course, is where does it end? Does it end with Jesus as not-literally One with the Father? Maybe that might be where this is all going. The “Non-salvivic” column becomes very very long.
I hold a fairly literal view… just not as literal as a run-of-the-mill American Evangelical.
Kurt: You said we don't teach about the "rapture" in church. We don't refer to it as that, but instead use the terminology of being "caught up". Please tell me your ward doesn't skip over 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, D&C 88:96, and D&C 109:75.
Make a game show style video where you debate: Which is weirder? Latter-Day Saints or Latter-Day Saint teachings?
I love Latter-Day Saints and Latter-Day Saint teachings, but there is a right answer to this question. It’s shows like the wired autocomplete interview that answer the hard-hitting questions like this.
Anglicans in America are not Presbyterians! We are Episcopalians!
Type, type… “Why don’t evangelicals want to feed the robots?” … type, type, type
10:37 folklore doesn’t just come from no where. Believe in miracles. Folklore often comes from true miracles. Don’t disregard it. I know someone who was struck by lightning and his garment areas were the only areas not burned by the strike.
@zionmama150 I agree about miracles. They haven't ceased. However, it is wisdom to exercise caution and not be reckless because you believe that you are bulletproof. You know what I mean? I remember people who behaved recklessly and died, and the ward would all say it was that person's " time to go." My beloved father would scoff at that sentiment. He made certain that we knew that the Lord expects us to be wise and behave wisely.
We belong to the "Church of Jesus Christ" and are considered the "Saints" or the "Deciples" of Jesus Christ in the "latter days" before His second coming.
The philospophical question regarding the pre-mortal life is simple: If God didn't have children before, why would He want children now? If God's children didn't exist before, a loving perfect all knowing God wouldn't invent/create suffering in the form of man ever.
I don't agree with your reasoning. God had to chose when to create mortal humans. It's not Him changing His mind to start something new. I also think God's goal in allowing suffering is to overcome suffering and let humans access perfect joy.
@_Squiggle_ you agree then that God created suffering from nothing? In old Christianity God has a Family. Dr. Margaret Barker, a Methodist scholar, though not very popular among today's Professors of Religion, reads the old books and archeology. The LDS believe these things because of modern revelation but there's still plenty in the king James Bible to make you think if you want to and again, I say, a loving God would not create suffering from nothing.
@@MelonsandMaters Hi, I am a latter-day saint. I think it's possible a loving God can create suffering if it results in ultimately more happiness
Not doctrine butI have a theory: Is it possible they dinosaurs existed while Adam and Eve were in the Garden died out either before or after The Fall? If I understand correctly, they were immortal before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Meaning they did not begin to age until then. In that case Adam and Eve could have lived in the garden for an unknown amount of time, perhaps hundreds or thousands of years or even longer before being cast out of the garden and became immortal bringing death into the the world. Maybe outside of the garden animals and plants could have continued to live and reproduce before the fall. Could this be an explanation that can harmonise the age of the earth between science and the scriptures? That is If the age of the earth according to the Bible began after The Fall when mortality began. Could that explain dinosaurs and fissils. On another note, I recent thought that the explanations of ancient human or humanlike fossils could be from inbreeding or some disabilities that deformed some bone shapes, or just be a different race instead of species. Another theory about evolution, I have heard someone say is that maybe God used it as part of the method of creation. Or example the book of Genesis shows a sequential creative process starting with plants then animals and lastly man. From what we know, Adam was the first one crated in God's image. I also have heard they the number of days to create the earth and all the life on it could have either been literal 24 hour days or just a metaphor for periods of time or epocs that could have been for much longer. For example could "one day on earth could be the same as thousands of years in heaven." Reminder, these are just thoughts and ideas I have heard and have speculation as possible explanations, not doctrine or anything that has been taught in church.
Disregard the username:
If you do more history on the church, look up Casey Griffiths. He’s an institute teacher at BYU, he also was my bishop growing up.
The Bible actually does talk about the worshipping of Saints. (Revelation 22: 8-9. )
Just looked up your scripture and it seems to be saying the opposite of what you claim? John worships an angel and the angel says to worship God instead
@@_Squiggle_I think he is saying the Bible addresses the issue. Not that it encourages it specifically.
@@germanmarine6582 Ahh, ok that makes sense
As already pointed out, the passage referenced talks about worship going to God, rather than a created being, such as the angel (or in the initial post man). Prayers to the Saints, and angels, are not prayers of worship, as that is reserved only for God, but rather asking for their help. Asking them to ask God for something on our behalf, much like we would do with a friend. This doesn’t replace asking God directly, but is meant to be done as help for gaining that which is being prayed for. As we are told in Scripture, the prayers of a righteous man availeth much (paraphrase of James 5:16). And you can’t get more righteous than being in the presence of God, which is what a Saint in this regard is.
@@kennethbergstrom3383 , thanks for sharing your point of view on the subject. The scriptures obviously talk about angels and past saints ministering and helping other people. I interpret the scriptures as teaching that the angels were sent as a result of praying to God. I don’t see God’s power being given as a result of praying for help from an angel, unless the angel was already there as a result of being sent from God as a result of having directly prayed to him.
Do Catholics ever bow down in prayer to the Saints?
I disagree with the statement of not being fanatical about the wearing of the garment. It should be worn all the time unless we are participating in a sport like swimming, playing basketball where the sporting clothes doesn't cover it. Bathing we don't wear the garments. I play golf and wear shorts that are long enough to cover the garment. We have been told not to modify the garment so we can wear clothing that doesn't cover the garment. I would say it is a symbol of out faith.
It’s the three S’s; sports, swimming, and sex.
It's a good thing the Song of Solomon wasn't a picture book.
😂
Fun fact. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints believes that the song of Solomon is not inspired scripture.
@@gwengold8154who is the author?
@@gbengoosewuru4139 I believe that the author is unknown.
Try the fossil record as we understand it shows. …
Perhaps not a popular comment here but why does Jeff continue to use the term Mormon/Mormonism in his conversation and title post descriptions? As a lifelong member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints I have never identified as Mormon or a believer in Mormonism. I am grateful President Nelson clarified our identity and am hopeful members of our faith and others will please stop using these slanderous terms. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints is the Lords church and the members are disciples and followers of Christ, NOT Mormon. I find those who abandon their faith or passively attack the church use these terms (Mormon/Mormonism) to dismiss the faith with ease. If they said I left the church of Jesus Christ or don’t agree with the doctrine found in the church that bears his name it would not roll off their lips so easily.
💯 In my whole life, I never once self-identified as a " Mormon."
These days, it's getting easy to tell who's anti and who's not just by use of that term.
@@gwengold8154 Curious, are you in the US? I was raised in California in the 80’s and 90’s and nobody referred to themselves as Mormon. I did notice members from Utah bring it up and when President Hinckley wanted members to sign up for I’m a Mormon account I could not do it and that was a low point in my faith journey.
@LeastofThese_R_US Don't feel badly. I think the whole " I'm a Mormon" campaign was folly. I remember going around to anyone who would listen in the church and railing against it. They just rolled their eyes at me. Lol. I said that I would NEVER be in those films! ( not that they ever wanted me to be, lol)
Yes, I'm in the United States. Lots of the people around me were okay with the label " Mormon," but I never was. I think it's the single greatest thing President Nelson has done as president of the church to move us away from that and back to what the Lord said that we should be called.
@LeastofThese_R_US Pastor Jeff mentions in the video that most people in the world still know us as " Mormons. " Maybe that's why he's continuing to use the title. I don't like it, but it's not my channel.
I remember a general conference talk that Elder Ballard gave that was along those same lines. It was a bit schizophrenic to be honest. He said that we should use the correct name of the church but that the world was essentially never going to stop calling us " Mormons," so we needed to use that to be known. I honestly never liked that talk.
@@gwengold8154 Keep up the good fight and thanks for the feedback. Take care.
At what point does flirting with a "different Jesus" begin to affect the gospel and the believer? I know you are friendly and looking to learn about the LDS, but at what cost to the young believer watching who may be swayed by "every wind of doctrine?" Is your intent to record your discussions or share with the world..... As a shepherd you have some accountability.
The church has no official position regarding evolution, but leadership over time, have sad some very decisive things about the theory of evolution standing in direct contradiction to the plan of salvation and the Atonement of Christ.
You are starting to sound like LDS
Because Lucifer is clearly in the Bible, who is he to evangelicals?
I think that they think he's a fallen angel.
Ask if LDS believe in polygamy in the celestial kingdom? If so how important is it?
None. Polygamy is the unauthorized use of plural marriage, which as far as the next life we don't know that much about. We know some will be practising it there. Jesus said few will (Mat 7: 14) qualify for that kingdom. Great prophets like Jacob (Israel) will have more than 1 wife there.
@@stephtimms1776 can you clarify your statement that polygamy is the unauthorized use of plural marriage? Most people use those two terms interchangeably.
@@casualobserver9113 the difference is how and when it is practised, and why. When done to obey and glorify God, and under his direction, we call it plural marriage. Other use of it is done by men under their own direction and for their own glory, and is not acceptable to God, in our beliefs.
I am always confused by this topic.
Do Evangelicals not believe that Jacob (Israel) had many wives? Was he unrighteous because of it? Do they believe Israel won't be in heaven?
I understand that most/all Evangelicals believe that there will be no marriage after this life, but if marriage can be eternal, then it stands to reason that Israel will have more than 1 wife in heaven.
@@casualobserver9113 We believe Sarah & Abraham practised plural marriage under God's direction. This is indicated by her saying to Abraham, my wrong be upon thee (Gen 16: 5) and God backing her up when she said to cast out Hagar and Ishmael for disrespect (Gen 21:12).
The first response is disingenuous in that it is not just their ancestors that LDSers "rebaptize" but every name they can find. See the controversy of baptizing the Jewish victims of the holocaust. Please be honest if you are going to do a program like this. Don't normalize the offensive.
I think he was being honest. All the names that I have done and are doing in the temple are people who are related to me. Eventually, the family lines all run back to Adam and Eve, so I see your concern there. But, we reiterate that this is only an offering. NO ONE is forced to accept it. If they reject it on the other side of the veil, it is null and void. It's similar to if someone gets excommunicated.
I don't honestly understand the reaction against it. Either we are totally wrong, and it's just a goofy thing we do. ( wherein is the harm then?) Or, we are correct, and many people might be very grateful for this offering.
@@gwengold8154 I appreciate your answer and accept your attitude about it so thank you. I am not a Mormon but have known them for 40 years and have never met a LDS member that I did not admire. While I can not accept the doctrine of the Restoration I have nothing but admiration for you all!
@@sovstte What a sweet comment. Thank you 😊 The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is not for everyone. What I mean is, it's not everyone's cup of tea. I get that. No worries 🤗 I wish you all the best.