Audio only:
In this episode Trent sits down with Mormon apologist Hayden Carroll to discuss a video he did criticizing Trent’s arguments.
The Strongest Argument Against Mormonism
Transcription:
Trent:
For many Mormons, if they were presented with miracle claims in Catholicism, for example, like Marian Apparitions, Eucharistic Miracles, do you think that a demonic explanation could at least be on the table for them?
Hayden:
Those are the things that I struggle with as far as, I don’t have a great answer, but just to label it as demonic, I think is, I was going to say dishonest, but maybe just it’s lazy.
Trent:
Hey everyone. Welcome to the Council of Trent. Today I have invited Hayden Carroll from Let’s Talk with Hayden Carroll. Hayden is an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church Mormonism, and he did a video on his channel recently talking about the strongest argument against Mormonism. Yours truly was featured in it with an interesting pairing with myself and Protestant Pastor Mark Driscoll. I’d never thought we’d be paired up together in something, and so I thought about doing a reply and sending it to Hayden and that kind of approach. I thought it’d be more fun just to invite him, come here and we could just have a little bit of a chat about the parts I disagree with. There’s other parts I actually do agree with. So Hayden, welcome to the council. Trent.
Hayden:
Thank you. Thank you for having me. I’m a big fan, so it’s really a pleasure to be here.
Trent:
Sure. Why don’t you tell our audience just a little bit more about yourself and your channel?
Hayden:
Yeah, so like Trent said, I’m a latter day saint and I do my best to give a offense for the church, Jesus Christ, latter Day Saints the channel. My personal channel just started about two months ago, rather. I’ve been in the online space with Jacob Hanson and Thoughtful Faith and others for about four or five years, but this is my own channel, and essentially what I do is I go set out a table mostly at Arizona State University here in Phoenix, and I have a banner, provocative banner about atheism or about cradle Christianity, and then we have conversations with students who walk by. So it’s been really fun and got a lot of good support so far in the first few months.
Trent:
Sure. Well, let’s jump into the video that you gave. It’s called the Strongest Argument against Mormonism, and you discussed those were critics of Mormonism like myself and others, who proposed the possibility that Mormonism could have had demonic origins to it. So let’s talk about that. Maybe you can give a brief summary of some items that you presented and then we can go back and forth on that and then maybe expand a little, because some people have also taken the claim that talking about Mormonism, having a demonic element to it can even be a dangerous thing to do, could lead to acts of violence. That was not put forward in your video, but I’ve seen other Mormons bring that up. So yeah, just talk about it and then we could discuss some of the elements might be helpful.
Hayden:
So I mean the video for those who watch it, maybe you can link it in the description so people can go watch it. Essentially what I actually started doing, it actually was a video specifically about Mark Driscoll, but as I did some more research, I did find some clips from you, not because there’s a difference. I’m not here saying that you and Mark Driscoll are saying the exact same thing, but it isn’t the same ballpark, right? He’s declaring it right. He has no restraint in declaring that Mormons are demonically inspired, that Joseph Smith was visited by a demon. He says it like it’s a fact. Now, that being said, there are other people, even Catholics, Matt Frat who said that Mormons are demonically inspired. Our doctrine should be crushed under his feet, that he’d burned Book of Mormons. There are people in this space who are declaring it. I see you kind of in the ballpark on the spectrum towards the other side where you’re not declaring it, but rather you’re saying it’s a possibility. And so the reason I brought you in is because I wanted to highlight essentially how Mark Driscoll is basically begging the question, he’s assuming the truthfulness of his own position without proving it
Trent:
To
Hayden:
To then come to a conclusion that is only justified if he is correct. And so that’s when I use your statement about Catholicism being true from Jacob Hanson’s debate. And so again, I just want to clarify. I actually don’t think, obviously that you or even Mark Driscoll wish violence upon Latter Day Saints, and I think he even put out, and he’s put out some crazy things, but I think he put out a statement that said it’s not right to kill people when the Michigan shooter a couple months ago came out. But I do think, and here’s my major concern, it’s kind of like what Jordan Peterson says when he says, if I am reasonable, you have to contend with my argument, but if I’m not reasonable, you can just categorize me as unreasonable and ignore me and then associate me with Nazis. I know you’ve even made some clips regarding Stephen Crowder talking about the Pope and communism where you say it’s not helpful to just label people. And so that’s kind of the mindset that I’m coming from. Yeah, definitely. I’m not implying that those who use this argument are, I think it’s a bad argument. I can tell you why I don’t think they’re advocating for violence implicitly,
Trent:
And I think that that is important to be able to pander out that if you say something that is true, here’s the thing, if you say something that is inflammatory and false and that inspires others to commit acts of violence, then I think you bear a moral responsibility for doing that. If you claim that somebody has done something absolutely terrible, and especially if if it is inflammatory, false and it’s false, or you could have easily known that it’s false because someone could just be honestly mistaken, for example. But if you’re negligent and you just throw things out there, you could have done just a little bit of due diligence and you say an inflammatory false thing leads to violence, I think you do bear some responsibility for that. But if you say something that’s true and inflammatory and it leads to violence, I would say it’s very different.
So for example, I will unabashedly say that abortion is murder, even it’s not legally murder because murder has to be unlawful, but it’s unjust laws to keep abortion legal. If I say abortion is the homicide of tiny human beings, abortion is the dismemberment of children. If I say true things like that and someone commits an act of violence against an abortion provider, I mean, that’s not my, I’m not morally to blame for someone doing that because I condemn all acts of abortion related violence no matter who’s involved. So I think that when people are concerned about making this label about Mormonism, I think you’re right. It’s like, look, some people could use it in a lazy way, some people could use it in a malicious way, but for other people, they really are. I don’t say for myself, I’m trying to sort out the Mormon truth claims.
And in my debate with Jacob and other Mormons I’ve engaged with, I would say there are a series of different explanations for the evidences that are put forward, and that’s one that I do put forward. And also, I don’t think that it’s out of bounds necessarily, and maybe we could tease this a little bit more because if you are presented with something paranormal or seemingly supernatural in a competing religion, I think for many Mormons, if they were presented with miracle claims in Catholicism, for example, like Marian Apparitions, Eucharistic Miracles, stigmata of the Saints, I do you think that a demonic explanation could at least be on the table for them?
Hayden:
Potentially. But I wouldn’t go around and publicly say something like that, and here’s probably my reason why it’s Unfalsifiable. Right. Just to kind of tease you a little bit, this makes me want to write a book called When Catholics Argue like Jews, because you have first century Jews validating Jesus Christ’s miracles. They’re saying, yeah, it is a miracle, but it’s demonic. And so I’m not here to defend the Book of Mormon today necessarily,
But that’s one of our points is that we’re seeing more and more people having to contend with the historical facts of the origin of the Book of Mormon. And the funny part is, is that they’re starting to admit that one of the tenable options is that he was demonically inspired because the facts are so wild that he couldn’t have done it on his own. And so it actually plays into our apologetic line of reasoning when you guys say these type of things, and I’m not worried about that. What I’m worried about is the unintended, because I’m not saying that because of what you said or what Mark said. We do know that the Michigan shooter told people that he thought we were the antichrist, and so that’s why he went and shot men and women and children. Obviously, he’s dead as well. So that’s just my concern is that especially when it’s, what good does it do to label other religions as demonically inspired to me, and just to be frank with you, I do see it as a rhetorically powerful tool to keep people who already view us as strange or whatever, to keep them away from us.
I think that’s more so probably what Mark Driscoll’s doing is he’s putting a huge barrier between us and members of his congregation, no way that they’re going to give us a chance given what they think about us based on what he said. I did see that I feel like a little bit with your debate with Jacob. I mean, we can talk about your argument there and whether or not you felt like that was effective. I think it was the syllogism of if Catholicism is true, the book Mormon’s not divinely inspired and Catholicism is true. Right. Well, I want to get to that
Trent:
Argument. I want to get to that argument, but I think the problem, I feel a disconnect here when you say you don’t think it’s good to call other religions demonic, when the Book of Mormon itself speaks about, because the point of Mormonism is you preach the restored gospel. The idea is that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostles was lost. There was a great apostasy, then it was restored miraculously through the witness to Joseph Smith, and then the priesthood authority was restored, and the church of Jesus Christ was restored in the 19th century, 1830 book Mormons published all that. But so in the interim period from the death of the Apostles until that time, we say, well, what church is in the world? And in the Book of Mormon, I think it’s in one Nephi, 14 or 13, it talks about how there is a great and abominable church. There is a church of the devil, a church that has taken away the plain meaning taken away the precious books of scripture. And while the Mormon church has never officially said that, that’s the Catholic church, there have been Mormons like Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkey who argued that it was so that’s not official Mormon teaching, but even if it’s larger, you could just say that the great and Abom Church has to apply to something that’s not Mormon. So you see what I’m saying here?
Hayden:
Absolutely. And I was hoping you’d bring that up. So just as a public declaration, I totally condemn any latter day saint leader or member who has taught publicly, they think that that scripture is referring to any particular denomination. And like you said, people have done that. The funny thing is, especially with Bruce r McConkey, he actually wrote it in his book called Mormon Doctrine, and the chastised him for it, they said, you can’t say that. That’s not doctrine we have that he
Trent:
Removed it from the second edition.
Hayden:
Absolutely. And so you see even the church saying, that’s not what the scripture’s talking about. And so just for your viewers who may never have read the Book of Mormon, I’m not sure Trent, how much you’ve read of it. First NE five 14 is a vision given to the prophet who’s speaking. And so it’s a symbolic vision that’s contrasting good and evil. And so it’s not necessarily talking about a particular denomination, it’s saying all things that are good come from God and all things that are bad come from the devil. Now, that being said, I don’t have any issues with you or Latterday saints or evangelical Christians personally holding views that the devil’s at work, that he’s trying to distort truth. My issue is bringing it into our apologetics in a way that is not helpful because it’s not falsifiable. It’s kind of like I just see it as kind of a backup plan. Like, Hey, if we can’t explain it, at least we can say it’s demonic. And that’s I think what the Jews did in the early century. So again, I just don’t find it helpful in
Trent:
The apologetic world. Does that make sense? So what I’m hearing, yes. What I’m hearing from you is as a Mormon, you’re saying, Hey, I’m trying to show you that God is at work in my religion, but if anything that I can present to you, no matter how it seems like God has done a miracle that you just come around and you say, oh, well, that’s the devil doing it, then you’ve already kind of made a judgment about my beliefs beforehand, and there’s nothing I could do to convince you of the matter.
Hayden:
It’s like, oh, sorry, go ahead.
Trent:
Yeah. And so I do identify with that in a bit. It reminds me of when I engage Protestants on explaining the truth of Catholicism. I’ve divided Protestants into two groups. I call them, they’re the pleasant Protestants and the unpleasant ones. The pleasant ones would say that I am a Christian, albeit I have a very different theology. I’m a different branch of the tree of Christendom, but Catholics are Christians, and salvation is possible within the Catholic church, and God could be at work in the Catholic church, the pleasant Protestants, the unpleasant ones are the ones who would more say, and that’s where I get to feel more like you sometimes would say that I preach a false gospel. My church is demonically inspired anything that appears miraculous, and Catholicism is the work of the devil. And what’s interesting for me is I know how you were saying it’s like the strongest argument of Mormonism trying to have to say this demonic. I actually think that’s the strongest argument against Catholicism, because to me, when I’m talking to Protestants, it creates a kind of tr because, and I’d encourage you yourself also to go and investigate these miracle claims like the Eucharist, transforming into actual flesh and remaining uncorrupted, Mary appearing, declaring herself immaculate conception or appearing in zeto in Egypt where possibly millions of people saw her. Even non-Catholics, the miracle of the Son of Fatima, thousands of people see the sun dancing in the sky, things like that.
And I would say, and by
Hayden:
The way, well, I was just going to say on the record, those are things that I don’t necessarily have a great answer to. My Catholic fiance would tell you that I tell her that all the time. Those are the things that I struggle with as far as I don’t have a great answer, but just to label it as demonic, I think is, I was going to say dishonest, but maybe just it’s lazy, I think is the best way to say it. It’s like if you’re going to put me off just because presupposing my own belief, if I just said, well, mour is true, so all of those miracles are demonic. It’s not helpful, and it’s not a good argument. Sorry, cut you. Well,
Trent:
Yes. So I want to expand that a bit more, but right. When I talk to Protestants, the unpleasant ones, I would say it’s a bit more consistent because it’s like, okay, so why would God, and this is an argument that Mormons also used in Hein saying, well, if it’s demonic, why is God doing this stuff through Mormonism to inspire people to join this very wholesome religion? And the unpleasant Protestants will tell me, oh, well, to get people to lose their faith, to become Catholics and have a false gospel, yada, yada, yada. So my dilemma more for the pleasant Protestants, it’s a lot harder for them if they say, oh, I am another branch of Christianity. And yet, unlike other denominations, we have very specific miracles attesting to unique Catholic maryology because I agree that Protestants can do miracles too. I’ve read Craig Keener’s book on miracles. Most of those are faith healings. For example, I think, God, I think there are Mormon missionaries. I think there are non-Christians who God could work through.
Hayden:
I agree to help people completely agree with you.
Trent:
So I do not limit God and what he can do, where I find it a harder puzzle is if God empowers a Mormon missionary or Protestant to heal somebody who is dying of illness. That’s God using a person to show his benevolence and his love for the sick. But when God does a miracle that has a message behind it for really distinct Catholic theology like Eucharistic Miracle, a Marian apparition, things like that, to me, it seems like he’s trying to communicate a very particular message about this particular church, the Catholic church. So if you’re an unpleasant Protestant, oh, that’s the devil trying to get people to be these damned Catholics for if you’re a more pleasant Protestant, oh, maybe God is trying to send me some kind of a message. So for me, then, when I look at Mormonism, and I think there are possible natural candidates and explanations, but there could also be some more paranormal ones.
The point you raised though about, it’s like a get out of jail free card saying, oh, it’s just demonic so I don’t have to pay attention. I think that that has to be used with care because as I made a point in one of my episodes, there are some things not even the devil can do. Just because something is a wonder doesn’t mean that it’s a miracle. There are things that can just make you scratch your head and wonder, oh, how to do that, right. If Joseph Smith went and he said, I’m going to go talk to God, and he left for three years and he came back and he had the testimony of the Book of Mormon, I don’t think a lot of people would call that a miracle.
Hayden:
Sure. No. Yeah. It has to do with the translation process and speed and the content of the Book of Mormon, the circumstances, his ability to write or not write it, the telemetry evidence that comes through showing over 20 different authors, none of them which hold Joseph’s pre or post book a Mormon ethereal fingerprint. That’s what I’m saying. There’s more to this, and that’s why I actually say it, and I kind of like how you said it. It is the strongest argument because it’s what I mean by that it’s rhetorically effective, but at the same time, it
Trent:
Grants, I would say you would consider it the strongest argument because it grants any argument is going to be the strongest when it grants the most premises of your opponent’s position is what I
Hayden:
Would say. Yes. You mean strongest from their point of view or mine?
Trent:
Well, from anyone’s point of view, so for example, I take abortion, the weakest argument for abortion is to say a fetus is not human, and it’s just a clump of cells, which is like,
Hayden:
Oh, I see what you mean.
Trent:
Still a thousand percent not true. Correct.
The strongest argument for abortion says, of course, yeah. This is a human being with a right to life. It doesn’t have a right to use a mother’s body. So it’s like it’s granting more premises. So a weak argument for Mormonism would be to ignore the evidences you are putting forward the presence of chiasm, sty, tric analysis just to kind of ignore these elements in the Book of Mormon. But if you say, oh, well this is demonically inspired, you can grant the sophistication within the book. Now, what I would say though is the problem for me, I still don’t, even with the elements related to the book itself and its production, and I don’t mean this to be demeaning in any way, people take it as we can talk bluntly here, it feels more like magic trick than miracle, that the question we’re asking is more, Joseph, how did you do it? Because there’s ways that it could have been done naturally. Like you go for three years and you do it all. Did you do it? Were there other writers we don’t know about? Or there’s other preparation beforehand or these other elements, but you wouldn’t really ask the same thing about Jesus. So how did you come back from the dead? How that seems more like that’s a miracle where the laws of nature suspended. Whereas with the production of the Book of Mormon, the text itself, the Book of Mormon text is a natural thing. The mystery is just more how is it produced. You see what I’m saying?
Hayden:
Yes, and I understand and actually agree with you. Our argument though would be that given the historical evidence, unless you want to ignore the historical evidence or get into this major conspiracy theory, I mean, you have to think how many people would be involved in this. And regarding the S, right. Sometimes we tease cradle Christians when we say that, Hey, we have way more witnesses for the golden plates and for the translation process than you do for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Trent:
I don’t mean to interrupt, just to clarify from the audience. You say you’re saying cradle Christians
Hayden:
C Credle? Yes. Those who ascribe to the creeds early creeds.
Trent:
So the ing Constantino creed, because Mormon, as a Mormon, you see yourself as Christian. You just don’t accept the early ecumenical creeds saying that Jesus is of the same divine substance as the Father, for example. Correct.
Hayden:
We would see ourselves as the one true apostolic church on the earth today.
Trent:
And so then that would mean there’s one true apostolic church and anybody else is a false church.
Hayden:
Well, we wouldn’t phrase it that way. We would say that Mormonism is concerned with what is true. And so if there are truths in the creeds, we would deny the cons substantiation that came in the fourth century of what we call the Godhead. But that’s not to say, right? I mean, I assume that you believe the Bible. I guess you have 73 books, is that right?
Trent:
73, 72 depending on count, yeah, 70
Hayden:
That you would see those as infallible, that you would posit that the Pope can be infallible. Right. We reject a lot of those maybe fundamental truths for you that you may hold, but there’s a lot of truth that you do hold, like Jesus is the Christ, and if we put our faith in him, we can gain eternal life. And there may be even truths in Judaism, and there may be truths in Islam. Obviously we reject large portions of those. But yeah, we wouldn’t go around. And I know even Joseph, right? So when he comes out of the sacred grove, as we call it, for his first vision,
He says, God the Father, Jesus Christ told me that all the creeds are corrupt. All their professors are corrupt. The creeds are an abomination, but we don’t use that rhetorically. And Joseph never used that rhetorically. And if he did, I would condemn it. He’s a perfect person. If he did, I condemn it. And I would hope today that he would condemn it, that we should never be using othering, just labeling. I think I, it kind of goes back to the idea, like I mentioned with Jordan Peterson, when he says, sorry, my camera’s going to Vocus when he says, if you just label me a Nazi, it dehumanizes me. And the issue is, again, we have to keep talking about it, but the Michigan shooting, that guy was not in his right mind. Obviously I think he was a war veteran, he was addicted to drugs. But the issue is there are real life consequences for labeling people dehumanizing them. And I’m not saying you’ve done that, but it is in the realm just to tie us back to what we’re talking about when we start. I mean, think about it. Why did the Jews kill Jesus or what was one of their arguments possessed by a devil? And so anyway, like I said, I don’t put you in the same camp as Mark Driskell, but I don’t
Trent:
Know if they thought that explained his blasphemy in claiming to be God,
Hayden:
Okay, whatever, but that he was demonically inspired in some way. Is that right? Did they not? Maybe I’ll have to go read it. Did they not say that any of his miracles were related to
Trent:
Yes. So the Pharisee said he casts out demons by the prince of demons to which Jesus then retorts. If Satan is divided against Satan, then he’ll fall. So that goes back to the elements of when you apply a demonic explanation to a supernatural event. I agree with you. It shouldn’t just be scattered about willy-nilly or as a get out of jail free card, but if the evidence overall points in that direction, I do think that it’s fair to point that out. So in Jesus’ example, he would say, why is Satan divided against himself in this way? And then now if Jesus had never risen from the dead, that could still what he’s doing. That could still be a viable explanation. But I believe following what St. Thomas Aquinas said is that not even the devil being a creature and God is creator, the devil cannot bring someone back to life.
He can’t raise the dead because God is solely the author of life and death. If the devil were able to do that, he could subvert God’s plans and God would not allow subvert his plans in a radical way, taking away from God’s unique authority as the author of human life of all life, really. So that’s where I would not apply. I would find a demonic explanation, not be able to apply for the resurrection. But I think you and I, you said you don’t like the label, but I guess I’m curious, do you think there could be cases in other false religions where it could be applied? Could it have been a possibility that for Islam, Muhammad thought that he encountered the angel Gabriel, but it was really a demonic element?
Hayden:
Maybe. But I’m not going to go publicly say that.
Trent:
Not even as a possibility.
Hayden:
No, I’m not going to contribute to have any possibility that somebody’s going to cause harm because right. What if they go shoot up a mosque? And it’s like, because I suggested, I’m not saying I’m responsible or because it was only me, but I personally just rather not be a part of that conversation. Now, may I believe that personally? Sure. You may believe Mormonism is demonically inspired personally. That’s fine. I’m just talking about when we publicly get on with such a large platform, talk about it amongst your friends privately. I think that’s probably better and maybe more appropriate.
Trent:
Or what about, I would say, I think it’s quite plausible that satanism is demonically inspired.
Hayden:
I think Satan laughs at satanism. I understand that they’re essentially proclaimed atheists.
Trent:
Well, the agnostic ones, yes. But they still have an unusual fixation
Hayden:
With
Trent:
Desecrated eure.
Hayden:
If a group calls themselves satanic, maybe it’s appropriate to call them satanic in the name
Trent:
If it’s in the name.
Hayden:
And so maybe you couldn’t have blame, but do you know what I mean? That’s all I’m saying is I don’t think it’s a good argument. I think it presupposes right, because think about the Pharisees
Trent:
Mhm
Hayden:
Their minds, they were justified saying that Jesus was demonically possessed or whatever
Trent:
Sure
Hayden:
Because they were presupposing their own. And so I can see that with Catholicism. Islam could say that about us Judaism. Mormons could say that about people. But I’m more concerned about using it as an apologetic tool. That’s what I’m concerned about.
Trent:
And I guess from my end, I would say the Jews’s initial assessment of Jesus, I think that if somebody claims to be divine, this goes back to Cs, which predates CS Lewis, but he popularized it that Jesus is either in Latin, it was deus out malice, homo either God or a bad man. So it’s more informally known as Lord, liar or lunatic.
Hayden:
Yeah. He’s not a lent. Yeah, that’s right.
Trent:
So the idea there would just be if someone claims to be God, they’re either totally bonkers. They’re a very, very bad person, and maybe they are inspired by the father of lies of bad people, so to speak, the devil himself, or they are who they say they are. So I think that it’s on the table for people who claim divine revelation. Either they’re out to lunch, they’re a bad person, or they could be a supremely bad person with demonic elements, or they are who they say they are. And then you’d have to examine the elements. So with Muhammad, for me, it’s possible it’s demonic. For me, it’s also possible it was a self-serving thing. He spent many, many years reciting the Quran. It wasn’t done in a fell swoop. It could also be more legendary elements.
Yeah, absolutely.
Which would be different in the Book of Mormon that at least no one’s really saying Joseph Smith didn’t exist. So legend’s not one you’re going to be able to really go off to.
Hayden:
But I think the issue with that though is it’s not good apologetics because the same argument could be turned back on you. I could just say the Roman bishop in the fifth century, you served power that he did not have claim to, and that he just did it right. That there was no divine inspiration, that there was no apostolic universal jurisdiction. We can make these claims, but again, they’re all unfalsifiable.
Trent:
Well, I wouldn’t say that because even that claim, I would show, for example, lots of claims to papal supremacy even before that, and recognition of the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome or the ability of even in the first century of Rome to settle disputes and other diocese. So I think that, I guess I just don’t agree with the idea that the explanation that something is demonic in origin is unfalsifiable. If we have a limited understanding, there are things the devil cannot do. And if we sort out other explanations, I think it can be employed. But I agree with you, it should be employed very carefully among competing hypotheses.
Hayden:
Yeah, it’s funny that Jacob Hanson and Joe Hess Meyer are doing their debate on the great Aposty on Friday. So Jacob and I have been talking a lot about it. So I don’t want to, and I don’t know where you’re when you’re going to post this, but I would love to have a conversation with you on Papal supremacy. Maybe not today, but maybe another time. Can I give you a quote just for fun, just to tease you a little bit?
Trent:
Okay.
Hayden:
Tell me where, because I think you’re going to have an answer for it, but I just want to know, this is a quote from you again, the Stephen Crowder. I thought it was such a great article that you gave when he was criticizing the Pope about being communist. I thought he was being totally unfair. He was turning people away from the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Bishop, on basically nothing. And you gave a great critique of him. You said, when you label your opponent with these dramatic terms, he’s a communist or he’s a Nazi, it becomes the boy who cried wolf. And it’s not a responsible way to engage with people that you disagree with. You can tell me what you meant by that. That’s how I’m feeling
Trent:
Right
Hayden:
Now.
Trent:
So for me, I totally agree with past Trent on this one. It’s kind of like we see this on both sides. So it’s like when people on the left would say for the past 20 years that anybody who’s mildly Republican is a Nazi, any sentiment is a member like Republican, or you’re a conservative, you’re a Nazi. Ben Shapiro is a Nazi, George Bush is a Nazi, John McCain is a Nazi. You’re all Nazis. Then it becomes the boy who cried Nazi. When you have actual people mostly confined online, but they’re breaking out more, who legit espouse Nazi ideology and people won’t listen. And the same with Crowder saying, oh, the Pope’s a communist. Well, if you’re going to say anybody that’s mildly to the left of you economically as a communist, and the term doesn’t have meaning, but there are Nazis and there are communists, there are people, I have to engage both of them sometimes in their different errors. And if that’s what they are, then I will label them as such properly.
Hayden:
Okay. That’s just like we said though, with Satanist, you can label Satanist that because assumed that title. But again, the un falsifiability of knowing someone’s demonic, if you can only do that if you’re presupposing your own worldview first,
Trent:
But that could also work for Mormons. So you were critical. I gave an argument, which I think is valid. It’s a valid argument. It’s
Hayden:
Valid, but it’s not sound though, that’s the issue.
Trent:
Well, the argument was simply, if Catholicism is true, then Mormonism is false. Sure. Catholicism isru, nobody. Therefore Mormonism is false. And from your perspective, yes, you would say it’s not sound because you reject the first premise.
Hayden:
No, no, it’s not sound because the second premise cannot be proven. So it can never be a sound syllogism.
Trent:
Well, that’s a little bit different to say an argument is unsound means one of the premises is false. So you’re not saying the premise Catholicism
Hayden:
Is, I would say it’s unproven if the premise is unproven. Right. I could turn it back on you and say,
Trent:
Well, that’s a little different than true or false.
Hayden:
Well, let me just turn it back on you. Mormonism is true, therefore Catholicism is true. If Mormonism is true, Catholicism is false. Excuse me, Mormonism is true. Therefore Catholicism is false. It’s
Trent:
Like, and you could run modus tolls on my original argument and get the same thing if Catholicism, then Mormonism is false. Mormonism is true. Yeah. So you could,
Hayden:
Yeah, sure. That’s what I’m saying. It’s not to be frank with you, I saw it as damage control, right, from a critical view. Right. Because on team Jacob for the Book of Mormon, I saw that as you saying, if I lose this debate, it doesn’t matter you guys because Catholicism is true. So it doesn’t matter. And so when syllogism can just be turned around on the person who’s using it, because it’s not justified, the premises are not justified, it just falls so flat to me. And that’s actually why I brought you into the video in the first place. It originally, to be honest with you, I wasn’t planning on putting clips of you talking about Mormons are possibly demonic, but I was trying to make the connection between Mark Driscoll’s declaring it, and the only way he can declare it is if he assumes his own worldview first, which is what I saw you do in that syllogism.
Trent:
Sure. But this is something that anyone would do. Do you think it’s valid for a Mormon who is, they’re presented with arguments for the truth of Catholicism or for another religion? They might say, well, those are really interesting. But I know in my heart the burning of the bosom, I’ve followed James one five and I’ve prayed about the Book of Mormon, and I know that this is true. So I know it follows from that, that these other religions are not true. Is that a valid thing for a Mormon to do?
Hayden:
It depends on what you mean by valid. That may be okay for them to do. Personally. I just don’t think it’s, I don’t want to say unprofessional to bring to a debate, but because people, yeah, of course. Here’s another thing though, is Mormonism or the church of Jesus Christ for Latter Saints, we’re concerned about all truth. So if somebody approaches me with a truth claim, I’m going to listen to them.
Trent:
And
Hayden:
I may have reasons to deny it, but we’re not about this strict dogma that says, if you disagree with this, you’re out. We’re about bring all the truth you have and let’s put it all together. Right. There’s a famous quote from Joseph about that, or maybe it’s a more modern prophet, if I’m misremembering, that bring the good you have and let us add to it. So yes, in a certain context, somebody may deny something based on what they already know, and I think I do that and you do that, but to come to a debate and because right here is my real issue with it, the debate was not about Catholicism. And you literally said, if Jacob cannot disprove Catholicism, then we should reject the Book of Mormon. It’s like he’s not here to debate Catholicism for that. Well,
Trent:
It actually is a little bit, because the question was, is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired? And so for me as a Catholic, I would say the question of whether a written document is divinely inspired can only be answered by the authority of Christ’s church. That’s for example, how we know that the Bible is divinely inspired. And I would be curious, how would Joseph Smith be grounded in saying that the Bible is divinely inspired prior to the revelation that he was given, for example? So I would say for me, if the Book of Mormon, the question is, is it divinely inspired? I do not answer the question, oh, is this book divinely inspired? Well, I don’t know how it was composed naturally, therefore it must be divinely inspired. To me, that opens the door to anybody who can come up with a writing and something that I can’t fully explain who knows where it goes.
So for me, as a Catholic especially, and for a Protestant it might be different. I’ll grant you that, but as a Catholic, the question of whether a book is divinely inspired is going to be answered by the authority of Christ church. Because for example, I believe the gospel of Mark or the letter to the Hebrews is divinely inspired, not because it’s a miracle. I don’t know how they could have been composed with the Book of Mormon, but just because the church has retained this AOL tradition that they are inspired. So for me, I do think it’s valid as a Catholic for me to bring that in. When’s the question of whether God has inspired a human author to write something?
Hayden:
See, I can see where you’re coming from, but the issue you’re going to have is in that debate you didn’t prove that Catholicism was true. And so we don’t just assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the supreme authority on all things. I think it would’ve been a better argument for you if you would’ve been able to prove that. And I think that’s impossible. Even I would say I can’t prove Joseph Smith was a prophet. That’s what I’m saying. It’s just begging the question.
Trent:
But all Jacob had to do was then since I was waiting for him, he could have presented any evidence or arguments that Catholicism is false.
Hayden:
That’s not the debate though, right? He didn’t come to the presupposition that your church is true, starting at a neutral ground. Why is it his job to come in and prove why you are wrong?
Trent:
Does that make sense? Because it’s related, and I could have made this clearer in our discussion, and I will make it clear then with engagements with Mormons. And I think that that’s helpful because it is relevant to the question of how we know whether a writing is divinely
Hayden:
Inspired.
Trent:
And I get these debates of Protestants because when I talk to a Protestant and they’ll say, and I’ll ask them, well, how do you know that these particular stay with the New Testament, that these 27 books of the New Testament are divinely inspired since they don’t claim inspiration? Jesus never said there would be a collection of writings. The apostles did just say that. I
Hayden:
Love your solo scriptura debunking. I use your apologetics on it all the time with the Protestant. Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I just wanted to say it. Great.
Trent:
I’ll always let a fan interrupt. No worries there. But there they’ll try to come up with other, because yeah, that’s the thing Catholics and Mormons have in common. They
Hayden:
Can’t do it. It’s a great argument.
Trent:
We don’t believe in sola scriptura, but I would say there is say, okay, how do you know that these books are inspired and any other criteria? Oh, well, they’re written by an apostle. Well, Hebrews technically wasn’t. Mark certainly wasn’t. Or they’re quoted in the New Testament. Once again, mark isn’t quoted. There would be an example and on and on and on. Usually what they end up having to say is, well, the church got it right, but that doesn’t mean that the church is infallible.
Hayden:
Yeah, yeah. Oh, I loved when you cross-ex Gavin Orland and you said, why do you accept the tradition of the canon, but you reject other ones. And he kind of floundered. It was really fun.
Trent:
That’s the problem for me. The problem is say, okay, and more the question I have for Protestants is how do you know, although Mormons, although I mean I guess Mormons could later say they have a miraculous confirmation later on, but for Protestants especially, how do you know? Yeah, that the church got it right. Because what they’ll say is, well, look in a fallible church could give us an infallible cannon. Okay, that’s possible. But then how do you know they got it right when according to you, they got so many other things wrong in
Hayden:
The forces.
Trent:
That’s a
Hayden:
Great argument. It’s really good.
Trent:
That’s where I have the concern. And so yeah, when I’m engaging Mormons on this question as well, I do come at the paradigm of whether a written text is divinely inspired, different from how a Protestant would. Much the same way with the question of the great apostasy that I think Mormon apologists are very effective. I’ve read articles where they’ve gotten Protestants to admit Protestants say there was no great apostasy, and they’ll talk and the Protestant says, well, I guess maybe you are kind of right on that one. Whereas I would deny that. So that also comes to me for the, if Catholic true Mormonism Catholicism, true Mormonism is argument that comes back to, and I don’t know when this will air either before or after their debate, but the great apostasy will fit into it that as a Catholic, if I believe there was no great apostasy, then that would mean Mormonism is false. Correct?
Hayden:
Yes. I’m comfortable saying that if universal authority was on the earth that it did not need to be restored. So lemme make a comment though about something that you said.
Trent:
Sure.
Hayden:
What would you say to Jacob Hanson? Because the debate was, is the book more divinely inspired? What if he came in and his argument was it’s divinely inspired because the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that the authority has declared it as inspired?
Trent:
Sure.
Hayden:
What would be your rebuttal of that?
Trent:
Well, my rebuttal would be where we have no good reason to believe the church of Jesus Christ. Latter-Day Saints has that particular authority, and we have good reason to believe another enduring body. The Catholic church does have that authority, and that authority was never lost. So that’s probably, and then I would say to him, did you bring your Matt and Gee this time I really missed, we didn’t get to do Juujitsu last time.
Hayden:
Oh, you should. He’s awesome at that. So let me just flip that on you.
Trent:
Sure.
Hayden:
We could say the same thing. We could say, we have no good reason to believe that Rome retained universal jurisdiction and we have good reason to believe that that authority that Peter held was taken away and restored. Again, I don’t want to debate you on
Trent:
The great Aposty,
Hayden:
The church because the debate’s happening so soon. Maybe you and I can talk about that another time. I’d love to. I’m actually just chomping at the bit to talk about it. But for the sake of our conversation, we could just say the same thing. And I actually wouldn’t say it as, and maybe you didn’t mean this. Maybe you can clarify if you feel like you need to. You said we have no good reason. I wouldn’t say that about the Rowan Catholic Church. I would say there is historical records that we can look at, and I’m not convinced, but to say there’s no good reason. Well
Trent:
Then I guess I could rephrase. We don’t have sufficient reasons,
Hayden:
But we could both say that about each other so
Trent:
Then people can say about any argument.
Hayden:
That’s what I’m saying. That’s why it’s not a good argument. That’s why Jacob didn’t say that. That’s why I was actually kind of a little disappointed that you told them that you made it about the Catholic church has the authority, so therefore I’m right.
Trent:
I guess what I would say to Jacob, and you yourself, I would say, alright, how do we know what is the criteria for determining
Hayden:
If
Trent:
Something is divinely inspired? What is our historical, what did Jesus and the apostles leave us for? Answering that question? I think everybody has to answer that particular question.
Hayden:
Yeah, I don’t think there’s only one way to know, but doesn’t Paul say, oh, I should know the script off the top of my head. I think it’s in one Corinthians 11 where he says, do we know spiritual things by the spirit of God? The carnal knows the carnal and the spiritual knows the
Trent:
S spiritual man. Yeah.
Hayden:
And so just to clarify, first of all, we don’t believe that any source is infallible, right? We don’t believe anything that touches the human person goes through the human mind can be infallible. We just reject that as a blunt fact. And to say otherwise is unfalsifiable. And I think baseless, not to say we can’t say things that are true, but even a true statement can be fallible. It just means capable of error. And I’m not talking one plus one equals two. I’m talking about large texts. Right.
Trent:
So you think there’s no infallible human authorities.
Hayden:
Correct. We would reject that.
Trent:
Does scripture count as an infallible authority?
Hayden:
No, because it was written by humans.
Trent:
Interesting.
Hayden:
Yeah. So I I’ve used your debunk of the, or thetas about how it doesn’t necessarily mean God breathed, but rather life giving. I’m trying to remember. I think it’s a good argument.
Trent:
Well, that’s important because when I engage Protestants, a lot of them will make this particular kind of argument for sola scriptura. They’ll say, scripture is an infallible rule and there are no other infallible rules. So we win. Whereas my reply to them is, no, no, no, you have a burden too. Because there’s three levels. You could have Catholics, scripture, tradition, magisterium are the three levels of infallibility, orthodox scripture and tradition Protestants. One rule scripture’s infallible, and I had a zero levels of infallibility, which I usually put liberal Protestants into, but I guess I’d probably put Mormons in there too.
Hayden:
Well, we would say that I think it’s funny because when Protestants and Catholics talk to each other, there’s no debate on whether the text is infallible. Everybody accepts that. And then you have Mormons off here to the side saying, the default position is that humans are fallible, therefore they cannot create infallible things. And to say otherwise is a theological claim that you have to at least demonstrate or prove. And I don’t mean to be disrespectful in any way, but saying the magisterium can be infallible. You can’t falsify that The dogmas and I don’t obviously know all of them, a lot of them, if not all of them, I don’t know them well enough. You can’t falsify them. Those are theological claims. And by the way, Joseph Smith and our prophets have said things that are not falsifiable either. So I’m not saying that’s bad to do that, but to make a claim and then just expect us to accept it. Maybe you can help me understand and then come here to debate the infallibility of scripture. But do you have a claim for that other than because we said so? Or how did you come to the conclusion that the text is infallible?
Trent:
Now this is interesting. I have thought about around with this for a future episode to see what Protestants think about this. I question. I think many Protestants operate with an assumption. I agree with you that the text of scripture is infallible. I think that that truth is something that we have received through the word of God through an unwritten tradition
Hayden:
Because I respect that position. It’s consistent.
Trent:
Yes. Because I think when the people will try to give me proof text for that, John, the scriptures cannot be broken. That’s a really big overreading of the text. I think that that truth, ironically enough, is something that actually the fact that scripture is without error or I’ve talked about this before in a previous episode, and I’m doing a debate on soul scripture here in Dallas in February, and I’m going to resurrect, so to speak, an argument I gave before about the question is scripture the word of God? Because what Protestants will say is, well, of course scripture is infallible because scripture is the word of God and the word of God because the speech of God is infallible.
Hayden:
Yeah,
Trent:
Circular. Well, it’s not necessarily circular. I mean it has a big assumption about the word of God. There’s a minor premise that I challenge, which is where does scripture call itself the word of God? That the phrase word of God in scripture is used exclusively for the spoken word when it’s applied to the written word. It’s describing written documents that record God auditorily speaking, like to Moses for example.
Hayden:
We’re on the same team on this. I think that’s a stellar argument. So now instead of the Texas fallible, because we say it is, it becomes, we hold the authority to declare that it is, and that’s where the debate lies, I think.
Trent:
Yes. So that’s where we have this interesting overlap for everything. But I do think that with Mormons and Catholics, we have an agreement that God did not give us scripture alone. He gave us an authoritative church to teach about the nature of scripture, the real question. And that’s where there might be a part two to follow up. Joe and Jacob’s debate. Did the authority leave the face of the earth after the time of the apostles or did it remain? That’s kind of the crucial.
Hayden:
That’s exactly right thing. And that’s why I’m so happy and I’m excited. I’m sad that you can’t come to the debate. I
Trent:
Stumble in the jungle. I wish,
Hayden:
Honestly, it is the best debate question for a latter-day saint and a Roman Catholic. There’s no other way around it for both of them to essentially try to justify their authority in a way. Because that’s why I always tell my good Catholic friends, I say, look, I really do think your strongest arguments for what you believe is that we hold the authority and we kind of use that because we would say that the, so to go back when you talked about how did Joseph Smith know what was scripture when he read James one five? I think he took some of the assumptions of the Protestants at the time. He didn’t have any Catholic influence that we know of in the historical record, but he believed the Bible contain truth. I don’t know if he believed in soul scriptura. I don’t know if there’s any record of him commenting on that.
Obviously he rejected it later. But when he was young, when he was 14, who knows what he believed about it? We wouldn’t say that the church Well, because when you talk about what is scripture, that’s a debate question in and of itself. Is anything true scripture or is scripture what the church authoritatively puts wrapping in a bow on and gives it to the church members? So that’s a whole nother conversation. And I would just say we don’t believe humans can be infallible besides Jesus Christ himself. We don’t believe that, but we do believe that they can teach things authoritatively, even if they could be wrong. I mean, we would say that there are teachings of the past that potentially were wrong, whether that be policies or maybe even doctrines that have been corrected. And I think probably you as a Catholic would say the same thing that maybe not the dogmas, but there are some teachings in the church that have come and gone and been changed.
Trent:
Yes. So when I say Catholicism can teach infallibly, that doesn’t mean all its teachings are infallible.
Hayden:
Right?
Trent:
Absolutely. So I think then, although I would ask you is God, well, this gets into the Mormon question about God’s power, which is a little different, but I would say my perspective would be an all powerful God can empower a human being to teach and speak without error. Do you believe the powerful Mormon God, which most Mormons do not grant classical omnipotence to God, but still powerful heavenly Father, does he have enough power to make it so a human being can teach infallibly?
Hayden:
My answer to that question is more philosophical. Unless God is controlling us, if our will and mind is because I mean, I have to ask the question back, do you believe it’s possible for a person to misunderstand what God told them? And if the answer is yes, then you can’t just pick people who that doesn’t apply to. That’s a human trait that we can misunderstand things including God. This is actually kind of funny because,
Trent:
But I believe God can correct rational defects. So misunderstanding results in errors that are made in reasoning. And I believe that God can correct that. So people don’t make those errors,
Hayden:
But only if the person is willing and able to see it. Right. I just would tie it back to, unless God, because this is kind of how I tease the Protestants when I say, how is there an infallible text when it was written by men? And there’s no real good answer for it. And my answer is, if you believe that God literally controlled them, he possessed Paul and it was God writing, maybe you could have an argument for that. But nobody wants to say that because we have free will. So anytime the human fallible nature is involved, even when God’s speaking, and this is actually kind of funny, when Protestants give us a hard time about the burning in the bosom, a lot of ’em will say, oh, you just have a feeling, which is not our doctrine of feelings alone, that’s heretical as far as I’m concerned. My question back to them is, what you don’t believe that God can speak to me clearly? And it puts them on the defensive like, oh wait, I actually do believe God is powerful enough to speak to you. So it’s kind of a double standard. But again, I would just pause it that unless God is controlling the free will of individuals, you cannot label anything that they produce audibly or whatever creatively, whether that be doctrine even, or even prophecy that it can be labeled as infallible. I just think it’s a category
Trent:
Error. And here’s where I would, there’s different ways of responding to that. I think, for example, when we talk about infallibility, Catholics see that as a negative protection. So when we say the Pope or the church is infallible, it does not mean they will always have. So I’ll give you an example about infallibility. So suppose the Pope was infallible when it came to calculus. He’s infallible on calculus and he’s given a calculus exam. It has 100 questions on it. What is the fewest number of questions he will get? Correct?
Hayden:
The fewest number of questions he’ll get correct is 100.
Trent:
It’s zero because the infallibility just protects from error. So in being infallible at calculus, the Pope could look at the test and say, oh, I know I don’t have the right answer for any of these, and just not answer them. But he will not attempt to give the incorrect answer to the problem. So that’s that. It’s a negative. Interesting. It’s a negative protection. So that means the Pope. That explains why when we would’ve liked some theological formulas in certain past parts of church history, well, the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily positively provide them. It just prevents the Pope or the bishops from formally and officially teaching an error. So I don’t believe that God, to make someone infallible, God has to turn them into a little puppet or marionette. He just makes it so that they will not fall into some kind of error or make the wrong choice, while with the will, they still freely choose that which is true, that they’re affirming. So I think that’s the distinction I would make.
Hayden:
I can see that and I can appreciate that actually. And I think that’s a good analogy. By the way, your analogies are on point. I’m a big fan of the way you’re able to explain those things. That being said, though, again, you, I understand the concept as you’ve explained it, right? Sure. But it’s like, I don’t mean this in a mean way, but it’s baseless. There’s no evidence for that. And it’s kind of the circular reasoning Who said that? Who established that rule that you just told me? Is that the church that established that?
Trent:
Right. So that’s part of the churchs teaching. And then you’re right. So then it would all go back to why should we believe the church says this, how it does? How do you know the church has this authority? And for me, my argument for Catholicism is like a spiral argument, but also is buttress, and I actually need to do more of this. I think it’s an underrated argument about that the church’s divine authority, both at its foundation with the resurrection and the deposit of faith being given to the apostles being kept safe in the early church, but also confirmed throughout history with miraculous healing, sacramental miracles, apparitions. And so for me, I would say the most fruitful thing I think from your perspective with your Catholic fiance would be to dive into those Catholic miracles signs and wonders. Actually, I have a new book called Salvationist from the Catholic Church, so I might maybe I’ll ship you off a copy for that.
Hayden:
Very cool.
Trent:
So yeah, so I think that that would be to look into, but I guess the un falsifiability thing, do you think Mormonism is falsifiable?
Hayden:
No, no, no. Faith tradition is you can’t falsify the resurrection of Jesus. We’re all in that camp. How do you falsify the resurrection of Jesus?
Trent:
Well, that seems really so when I go and I debate Jacob on the Book of Mormon, if you already believe that its divine origin can’t be falsified, it sounds like nothing I say could have ever convinced you.
Hayden:
Well, let me just clarify that. Let me qualify that. Sure. I would say that we, and I think you may agree with this, we can have a personal experience with God. The issue with that is you believe God can speak to us. That being said, that doesn’t make us infallible or anything like that. But we would say the true source of knowledge or the most true form of knowledge is literally God speaking to you. Whether that be through his spirit or from him. We’ll say, the issue with that though is I can’t prove that to somebody else. That’s why, I mean, like if I come to you and I say, Hey, I know the book of Mormon’s true. Or you come to me and say, Hey, I know Catholicism’s true. Would you use that language? Would you be comfortable saying Catholicism is true?
Trent:
Sure. I would say knowledge is justified, true belief.
Hayden:
Okay. But the issue is there’s no definite proof. There comes a point where you’re relying on faith. I don’t want to say fill in the gaps, but you can’t prove something like, I have my cell phone here. I can prove to you that I’m holding it. Unless you want to go down the decar line to say we don’t even, well,
Trent:
That could be a malfunctioning cell phone. It could be a prop.
Hayden:
Yeah. But I mean you can reasonably with your senses actually see it. I would say that we assume that the reality we’re experiencing is real. And Decar said, Hey, how do you know you’re not dreaming? How do you know you’re not in a stimulation? We don’t go down that deep because then your life just becomes untenable. But we assume that what we experience is actually real. It’s not a simulation as far as being in the matrix or something like that. So past that though, you can’t prove a faith claim. Does that make sense? Sure. Yeah.
Trent:
But I would say, for example, I know Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, even though I can’t prove that that’s just the best inference of the historical evidence or many other truths. I think proof is something, it’s a very high level of certainty. You can really only have with certain mathematical axioms in most other cases, we can know things by a preponderance of evidence or by inference to the best explanation that it best accounts for the evidence that we have. We have a justified true belief.
Hayden:
I agree with that. And when I say that I know something, I don’t mean a hundred percent rational certainty. I don’t believe that’s possible. I do agree with you, and I think I understand what you’re saying, that when we say we know that language we use like, Hey, I know this. We’re expressing a level of confidence. But when it comes to, when I say falsify, I equate that with proving because I mean, a latter day saint would say, Hey, I have enough evidence to know that the Church of Jesus Christ, Latterday Saints has the authority. And a Catholic would say the same thing. And at the end of the day, you get stuck in this position. Where do you go from there? You go back to the evidence. But again, it will never be proof. If I asked you how do you prove that Jesus Christ was resurrected? Is that a possibility, do you believe?
Trent:
Yeah, it will. It depends. Once again, by proof, can I mathematically prove it? No. But I can make a historical argument that’s an inference as best explanation based on minimal facts related to the death and postmortem appearances of Jesus and stuff like that. So I guess when I say falsify, I would say either removing enough of the justifications that there’s no longer good reason to believe X or presenting enough defeaters to show that X just can’t be true. It contradicts what we know about reality.
Hayden:
I’m okay with that actually. I actually really like that. I don’t think that faith claims fall into that category or can fall into that category.
Trent:
It depends. I mean, if it’s a faith claim about something that’s not even in the world that might be difficult, the existence of certain kinds of other worldly beings, but when you make certain kinds of claims about people having certain abilities or having done certain things, that’s contradicted by the evidences, I think.
Hayden:
Yeah, that’s fair. There’s there’s thresholds of it for sure. But as far as proving authority, that I struggle with that a lot,
Trent:
And I think that’s where it ultimately comes down to. But yeah, I am excited. And then maybe just to tie bow on all this, well, or maybe it just might have to be a part two. Well, I guess, yeah, I know we discussed an email about two by two, you and Jacob. Yeah, let’s do that. Joe and I,
Hayden:
That’d be so much fun.
Trent:
I would be,
Hayden:
Let’s see how the debate goes and see if they still like each other after the debate. And then
Trent:
Let’s see and hope, and then maybe the four of us get together. And then Jacob and I can teach you and Joe Juujitsu, unless you already
Hayden:
Partake apart. I’ve rolled around. It’s been years, but Jacob’s more into it than I am. Anyway, I just try, I want you to know how much I respect you, how much I love the Catholic church. My mom was raised Catholic, her side of the family is Catholic. Obviously I’m engaged to a Catholic. I have such fondness for members of the Catholic church, and I do respect you as a leading apologist, and I respect a lot of your arguments, especially on abortion. And like we said, solos, scripter. I think you’re quite a genius when it comes to those things and you’re very skilled. So anyway, I want your viewers to know that there’s no animosity here, and I’ve felt you’ve been very gracious to me,
Trent:
So thank you. Same here. I apologize if I got a little bit too excited here, there with these kinds of dialogues.
It’s a hazard indeed. But that’s what I’m, it’s funny, I wanted to do this because I’m going to do an episode soon. It’ll be after this episode on Christian debate culture and a lot of things I don’t like about it that I’m trying, that I would very much like to see fixed. So that’s why I thought, for example, with your episode, I was just going to write a reply and I would’ve sent you the reply to at least understand your position, make sure I misunderstand all that stuff. But I think it was a lot more fruitful and enjoyable just to, I saw your video and then just chat about it.
Hayden:
Can I ask you just one last question? Sure. And it’s okay if not. If your answer is no. Do you see yourself changing the way you talk about Mormon potentially demonic? Did this conversation affect how you might move forward in how you display that or approach that?
Trent:
Well, I am not disabused of that explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon. So I would say that it’s still on the table for me as an explanation. But to use that language, I think what I would try to do is to add maybe a disclaimer to say, for example, if I believe a religion has a demonic element to it, I am absolutely not saying the people who belong to it are demonically inspired or more prone to maliciousness or evil than other people in religions that I would say are false religions. So I might add some caveats to that, but I am still firmly convicted because what makes Mormonism unique versus like say Methodists or Baptist or others, is they put forward as a virtue of their religion, that there was some kind of other worldly encounter with the founder of their church, which to me opens the door saying what kind of element from the supernatural, it’s opened the door and we can start to ask what kind that is. And I still think it’s a fair question.
Hayden:
Okay. I appreciate you answering that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Of
Trent:
Course. Yeah. Alright. Thank you so much Hayden, for being on. I will link to your original video below if anyone wants to check out to see what was responding to we were talking about. And yeah, hopefully whenever this airs, either later or back, go and check out my colleague Joe Hesh Meyers debate with Jacob Hansen on the great Apostasy. If it’s not out yet, it will be out soon. So Aiden, thanks for stopping by.
Hayden:
Thank you very much.