Cloud of Witnesses Radio
Audio drama retellings of the stories of the Christian Saints, Panel Discussions, Cast Commentary, Reaction Videos, Screwtape Returns, and more!
Cloud of Witnesses Radio
Where Was God's Church for 1800 Years | Ben "Orthodox Luigi" on the Mormon Question | TLTS017 CWP101
What happens when the claims of a 200-year-old American religion collide with the 2,000-year history of Orthodox Christianity? Ben Langlois (Orthodox Luigi) (https://x.com/orthodoxluigi) joins Jeremy Jeremiah and Cloud of Witnesses Radio for a fascinating exploration of Mormon theology and its fundamental differences from historic Christian faith. If you are an LDS believer, please watch this video and confront the challenges it brings.
The conversation begins with what Ben Luigi calls "the most devastating argument against Mormonism" – the historical continuity of the church through the ages. If Mormonism's foundational claim about a "Great Apostasy" is true, then what happened to Christianity for 1,800 years? How do we explain Christ's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against my church" and that He would be with His followers "until the end of the age"?
Jeremy and Ben dive deep into the theological inconsistencies within modern Mormon apologetics, particularly around their concept of the Godhead. While traditional Mormon teaching holds that God the Father was once a man who achieved divinity (part of an infinite regression of gods), many contemporary Mormon thinkers are adopting positions that sound increasingly like classical theism – creating major internal contradictions.
The discussion also examines historical influences on Joseph Smith's theology, including his involvement with Freemasonry just months before introducing temple ceremonies with striking Masonic similarities. Yet perhaps most fascinating are the unexpected bridges between Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity – from language about becoming "like God" (though with crucial distinctions) to concepts around the Father's role within the Trinity.
Whether you're a former Mormon seeking answers, a current member with questions, or simply curious about these theological traditions, this conversation offers compassionate clarity on what separates Mormon teaching from historic Christian faith while highlighting pathways toward deeper understanding between these communities.
Find an Orthodox Church near you today. Visit https://www.antiochian.org/home
Visit Cloud of Witnesses Radio: https://cloudofwitnessesradio.com/
Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdh
Please prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses Radio: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnessesRadio
Find Cloud of Witnesses Radio on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.
Thank you for journeying w/ the Saints with us!
Amen. Yeah, I mean, we talk about apostolic succession, but one of the things that we talk about we should talk about more is the succession of the saints. You know, I actually make the joke about, you know. Latter-day Saints you mean, like Father Seraphim Rose Elder.
Speaker 2:Ephraim, Saint Paisios, Saint Justin Popovich. Those are the only.
Speaker 1:Latter-day Saints. I know of. And something tells me that joke goes right over there, something tells me yeah, yeah, right, right, right.
Speaker 2:Welcome to Clouded Witnesses Radio. Really excited In studio today. We've got Ben Langlois joining us today, also known as Orthodox Luigi. Ben, always great having you. We really appreciate the time that you've given. It's a wild world out there. Today we are talking about the Latter-day Saints. It used to be called the Mormon Church. Yes, we can get into that, but why don't you? Maybe, Ben, just to start us off, why did Mormonism kind of come across your plate? Why is this an interesting topic for you recently?
Speaker 1:Yeah, you know, I think a lot of people have noticed in the last year or so, you know, like a rise in Mormon apologists online, and I don't know if that's from the Mormon church, you know, blasting funding into their apologetics ministry or if it's just a bunch of you know blasting funding into their apologetics ministry, or or if it's just a bunch of you know free rangers or some combination of both. Um, but regardless it's, you know it's something that that I think, as Christians, we have to be prepared for. As far as answering, you know some of the objections that they posit. Um, you know, I've already found very quickly the unique objections that they have to the christian faith.
Speaker 1:Now they like to call themselves christians, um, which we can get into that, but, um, but obviously, like you know, the general historical understanding of what makes a christian is at the bare minimum. You got a hold of the nicene creed, um, which they actually, uh, refer to. The creedal church is what they call us, right. Um, they refer to it as the. As church is what they call us Right, they refer to it as the church of the devil.
Speaker 2:Historically, they have an apostle by the name of McConkie, bruce McConkie, yeah.
Speaker 1:Bruce McConkie. He famously said the creedal church is the church of the devil. This is in their scriptures, where they talk about the church of the lamb and the church of the devil. Um, and so mcconkie's just taking that and he's he's bringing it to his logical conclusion. He's like if the mormon church is the church of the lamb, then these other churches have to be the church of the devil, right? So can we?
Speaker 2:talk about this first, ben, because I I kid you not that we'll talk about rebranding at a certain point. They're even backpedaling on that, because you're absolutely right, it used to be the church of the devil. The church fell into utter apostasy after the death of the last apostle. Basically, it was pure error. There was no truth. The gospel had been lost. I can now point you to modern-day Mormon apologists who are saying point you to modern day Mormon apologists who are saying well, the gospel wasn't completely lost, but the fullness of the gospel was lost. The fullness of the faith was lost. So maybe this can be a segue to get your thoughts on this way of playing fast and loose with the truth of their own teachings.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean the whole point of when Smith has his first vision in 1820, supposedly it was right after he read James 1.5 and he goes out into the woods and supposedly God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ appear to him and he asks them like, which of these, all these churches, am I supposed to join? And at the time he was in between, like Presbyterian and the Methodist, like really all he had access to was, like you know, protestant churches, right?
Speaker 2:It's an American religion, is Mormonism. It is.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but the response that supposedly you know God gave him to his question was you know, these are all. They're all wrong and you have to restore, restore, they call it the restoration of the gospel, right, so, like, inherently, if they're restoring the gospel, then that means the gospel was completely lost. And to give the Protestants some credit, like the Protestants don't even go that far. Right, like the Protestants, like with the Reformation, like they call it a reform, not a restoration, which, like ontologically, those are different, right, so even like a Protestant, like doesn't go as far as the traditional Mormon does.
Speaker 1:But what's funny is, like, to your point in the modern era, like they think that we're you know, they think we're saved, they think that you know, we have, you know, a lot of pieces of the gospel. You know, we're just kind of missing this last piece. And it's like when you read St Paul in Galatians, like when he talks about anathema to those who teach a false gospel, like is there any room in that text for? Like, oh yeah, there's pieces of the Judaizers are teaching pieces of the gospel, right, just not all of it. Right, like when saint paul says anathema, right, like I mean it's very clear that he means anathema, like let them be accursed absolutely uh for teaching a false gospel, right, if you?
Speaker 2:get christ wrong. Who do you say that I am? Yeah, you're wrong across the board and that's the anathema. It's not. Well, you're mostly right, you know, like on a sliding scale. Yeah, they even point to this.
Speaker 2:Doctrines and covenants actually evidently kind of refers to this great apostasy, right, and I believe this is tied to how mormons have successfully, kind of in a squishy way, adapted themselves to whatever current climate they want to take on. And that is, they say, the gospel, though not in the fullness. Some of it was correct. Hear this out, ben. Some of the gospel through those 1800 years of the apostasy was correct. What does that even mean? Right? What part? Yeah, what part, you know? Are you referring to Christology? Are you referring to a certain soteriology? Are you referring to christology? Are you referring to a certain soteriology? Are you referring to grace or faith? My point is is that on first glance, to someone who's unaware, oh, that sounds good. Some of the gospel was there. If you actually think about it. I think this is true of mormonism general, and you've put thought into this, ben, who I love to have this conversation.
Speaker 1:When you actually put thought into it, you see, it's just absurd yeah, and I mean the other thing, too is I like to press them on. You know, uh, like this great apostasy, like when did it occur? Because there's not a, there's not a consensus on that question, right, um, it seems to be the case that, because one of their objections to the creedal church is that we applied Greek philosophy, we Christianized Greek philosophy. Now, one of the things that I like to do is I like to point out that's exactly what St John does in John 1. He literally is Christianizing Greek philosophy.
Speaker 1:You know, when you read Philo, it actually dates back, even, like, to the 4th century BC, where you see this employing of this term logos that St John employs, but he Christianizes it, right, he defines it a very specific way.
Speaker 1:And you see the exact same thing, you know, especially at the First Council of Constantinople, with this Christianization of this concept of hypostasis and usia, right, like, there's a Christianization of it, of defining a concept that is present in Scripture, so like, even though the word usia is not used in that way in Scripture, it's employed in a certain way.
Speaker 1:That is defining a concept that is present in Scripture, 100% Right, yep, that is defining a concept that is present in Scripture, 100% Right, yep, and so that's why that objection doesn't hold, that this is going to be evidence of some sort of great apostasy. And actually, when you really press them on this point, it seems to be the case that they believe that if you don't have prophets and or apostles, you can't even be a church, you can't even be a true church. Be a church, you can't even be a true church. Like when I really press them on on this point particularly, and like where the creedal church went astray, that's the response I really get. At its core, it's that we quote unquote didn't have prophets and apostles could I?
Speaker 2:I want to ask you about this because to me it's immediately problematic for the LDS position, because where is their basis? Where do they point you, Ben, if they point you anywhere in the New Testament that says oh, by the way, when the last apostle dies, you guys better watch out because you're going to be in trouble. Where is there any sort of indication that the church that we know was being established by the apostles, but then by the laying on of hands to the first bishops, priests, deacons, etc. Where do they get that wrong?
Speaker 1:Well, one of the questions I have is about the Holy Spirit, you know, at Pentecost, right, being poured out upon the church. And what does Jesus tell us about what the Holy Spirit's purpose is, right, is to guide us unto all truth, right? And so my question to them is you know, if you're going to hold that, you have to have a prophet or an apostle. It's like, okay, what is the point of the Holy Spirit? Why was the Holy Spirit given to the church and why did he fail after one generation, right? One of the things we see in these periods in the old testament where there's, uh, maybe you know, a couple hundred years where there's no revelation, um, it's always like a period of judgment where there was like all these warnings right, you're talking about like hundreds of years of warnings of like this judgment is coming against you right like repent, repent, turn your way.
Speaker 1:You don't see this in the New Testament. Instead, we see promises of the Holy Spirit preserving the church. We see the laying out of hands, we see the church being called the pillar and foundation of truth. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. And another underrated passage is, you know, in Matthew 28, when, like, one of Jesus' last phrases to us was and surely, I am with you always, even until the end of the age.
Speaker 1:Right, and this is this objection can be posited against Protestants, against Mormons, against Jehovah's Witnesses, against anyone that believes that there's not, that you can't point to a random century and not be able to find the church that Christ founded. I should be able to point to any century and be able to find the church that Christ founded in that century, 100%. And as Orthodox Christians we can do that right, absolutely. In fact, you could pull a fifth century Orthodox Christian out and plug them into a modern Orthodox church and they're going to feel right at home, right, absolutely. So, um, compare that contrast, that with, like you know, a mormon or a protestant.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, that, to my mind, ben, is the strongest argument against mormonism. I truly believe it. And what is that? That's the lives of the saints, because, as you said, I love how you put that. Plop yourself down in any century for the past 2,000 years. What will you find? You will find a Christian hierarchical structure, ie under a bishop, priests and deacons that were ordained in the apostolic line from St Peter, st Paul, you name it. They're there. And what's happening? They're not operating in a vacuum. You have these amazing Christians who we know their names, we know their stories, we know they often ended in death, torture and other things. And what were they doing this for, ben? They were doing it because their lives had been changed by the Holy Spirit, through the power of the gospel, within the body of Christ, within the church, and that is the evidence that there was never a great apostasy. There was never any apostasy.
Speaker 1:Amen. Yeah, I mean, we talk about apostolic succession, but one of the things that we talk about we should talk about more is the succession of the saints. You know I actually make the joke about you, about we should talk about more is the succession of the saints. You know I actually make the joke about.
Speaker 2:You know Latter-day Saints, you mean like Father Seraphim Rose, Elder Ephraim, St Paisios, St Justin Popovich. Those are the only Latter-day Saints I know of, and something tells me that joke goes right over their heads. Something tells me yeah, yeah, Right me.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, Right, right yeah yeah, no, but it's just very evident and that's something that you know, father Sarah from Rose himself said you know, is that look and other saints previously have said very similar things of like look like the Orthodox Church is the only church that continuously is producing saints, not just good men, not just good women, saints. Right, there's a, there's a transcendence of the lives of the saints to just someone. That's just a good person, right, just a virtuous person.
Speaker 2:There's something transcendent about these saints, right, right, and that's kind of interestingly and we can talk about this maybe at some point, maybe not in this conversation, but um matushka olga of Alaska is about to be canonized and it's a great case in point. This is still happening today. The Orthodox Church is the church of the Latter-day Saints, Continuing on right. That's absolutely true. It's a beautiful thing. And why? Because her life she wasn't just a good person I love how you put that bit. She had people who were coming to her. She a good person I love how you put that, Ben. She had people who were coming to her.
Speaker 2:She exhibited miracles by the grace of God, changing people's lives, not just, for she had a great six-month run for her entire life of faith in church, and it is. It's an absolutely beautiful and powerful. If you'll allow me, Ben, can we maybe switch gears here just a little bit? I want to ask you because I know this is important to you. Another fundamental difference between Mormonism and Christianity is how they see the Godhead right, how they see the Trinity. Talk to us about that, Ben.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so I have to talk about this in two different ways, because I see there's kind of a divide of two different schools of thought within Mormonism. You have the traditionalists, who believe in an infinite regress of God, so they believe that God, the Father, was a man who incarnated just like Christ did and essentially that was how he achieved divinity, the same way that Christ did.
Speaker 2:You have a second school of thought that's becoming— and then goes on to become his own god of his own planet.
Speaker 1:Right, right, right, and then there's an infinite regress. So he has a god, and then that god has a god who's his father and great-grandfather, et cetera, et cetera, and it's an infinite regress. So he has a god right, and then that god has a god who's his father, right and great-grandfather, et cetera, et cetera, and it's an infinite regress. That was what Joseph Smith taught at the King Follett Discourse right before he died. That was really the consensus of the early Mormon prophets. In the modern era you have this kind of drifting towards a classic, more of like a classical theist approach, which is kind of hilarious, because that was, like, you know, the whole point of Mormonism was like to criticize this, but you have this drifting towards, now, the modern. A lot of the modern Mormon apologists will actually say that no, this stops with God the Father. So God the Father was sort of like the first principle and although materially everything is eternal, he sort of brought the Son into existence, right.
Speaker 2:I haven't heard this, ben, but there's a lot of disagreement.
Speaker 1:So there's a lot of disagreement on this because they can't quite figure out okay, was the Son? What was the Son's state prior to the incarnation? Okay, what was the Son's state prior to the Incarnation? Did he just incarnate, kind of like they would say the Father did, where? It was just something that he did to humble himself? He already had divinity.
Speaker 1:These are all the questions they're dealing with. One of the really quick ways to really get them to start asking questions about their own theology in both schools of thought is the Holy Spirit. The Holy spirit is a colossal disaster for their godhead, um, because the holy spirit, according to doctrine and covenants, doesn't have a body. But the holy spirit, over and over again, is divine, fully divine. He's a fully divine, conscious personage. Is what they say personage? Or they say a separate being, um, who is fully divine yet doesn't have a body.
Speaker 1:So now you've got a huge problem, because in mormonism, one of the most fundamental concepts this is paradigm, paradigmatic for them is divinity, is actualized potential. The reason why the whole purpose of the whole purpose of Joseph Smith's gospel, of Brigham Young's gospel, was that we are the same exact ontology as God, and so all we're doing is actualizing our potential in this life. That's the whole point of Mormonism, right? So why does the Holy Spirit have full divinity right now without a body? Now they say, oh well, you know he's going to get a body, which is pure speculation. In fact, joseph Fielding Smith, who was a later prophet in the early 20th century, I believe he explicitly says we shouldn't speculate about the Holy Spirit because it's not been revealed. So we don't know. We don't know what's going on with the holy spirit, um, but? But this is a huge problem for them, for in both schools of thought, wow, how was the holy spirit able to achieve divinity right without and and? And here's this leads me to really the paradigmatic, uh, falsifier, um, specifically really for that second school of thought, is it leads to a second ontology, because the Father, son and Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1:In this second school of thought I described, the more modern one they were able to achieve divinity in a different way than we do, because in that school of thought, they already had divinity all three did and they get a body later on. That's this new school of thought. Here's the problem. In the school of thought, they already had divinity All three did and they get a body later on. That's this new school of thought. Here's the problem. In the book of Abraham, in their consistent apostles and prophets, one of the most consistent concepts they say is that the reason why earth was even created was because you and I had developed as far as we could without a body. We needed a body to further develop. So you've got this flipped ontology now in their godhead where the father, son and holy spirit unlike you and me, they already had divinity, and then they get a body later on. It's like benjamin button, it's like this flipped, you know, right, um, and there's no explanation, right?
Speaker 1:when yeah, and they will never say. They will never say that we are a different nature than god. That is because that crushes them. That's game over, for sure, but it's what it leads to in both schools of thought. They, I believe that this, this is a huge metaphysical issue and their, their metaphysics are very much in infancy. You know, I I always bring I love. One of my favorite things about being an Orthodox Christian is like every objection's already been answered.
Speaker 2:It's like it's just, it's there, it's somewhere, a saint's addressed it.
Speaker 1:I just gotta go find it. Like their metaphysics are in infancy, like they're just figuring this stuff out. Right, because now they're trying to deal with things like okay, like, okay, the omni properties. Like god has to have the omni properties. But the problem is, if you have three different beings that all have the omni properties eternally, that collapses into one being. Right, because omni properties, by definition, that means you're not lacking anything. You can't have some, a being that's more omniscient than another being. It will collapse into the same omniscience, right, which is why the doctor of the trinity works. Collapse into the same omniscience, right, which is why the Doctor of the Trinity works. Because we believe the omniscience, the omnipotence, it's all identical across the three persons. It is numerically identical, right? So we've solved this problem. They are dealing with it, they're trying to, and what's really funny is the good ones are actually creeping closer and closer to Trinitarianism.
Speaker 2:Well, that's where my brain was going, because I'll tell you, ben, as you and I know we started talking here on camera I've looked into Mormonism. I happen to be a bit older than you and I remember Mormonism from back in the day. I remember talking with the Mormon elders that would come to my door and all those things. This is new, this is very new, and I'm just wondering how are they even getting away with it? Because it does sound like you're almost getting these quasi-theologians, these laymen, mormon theologians, who are grappling with these issues, like you said, for the first time this first blush, who are grappling with these issues, like you said for the first time, this first blush, and they're coming to conclusions that looks a lot more, you know, maybe a lot more Christian than they're going to be happy with and that is sustainable within their own theology.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, it's getting to the point where you know the only thing, when I press a well-read Mormon on the creed specifically, the only term I can get that they actually take issue with is homoousius. But then when I start defining homoousius, like now, suddenly they don't have an issue because, like they, when it's translated as substance, they have. They have a problem. Okay, right, but when I when I use calcedon, right. So one of the things I love about homoousius as a term is you can go to Chalcedon and you can see it used in two different contexts. You can see it used Christ is homoousias with humanity through his human nature and he's homoousias with divinity through his divine nature. Right, right, right. So I can point to that. Now, why is it different? Why are you and I the same, ousia in kind, but not numerically? Because we are not necessary beings. We're not necessary eternal beings, so our usia doesn't collapse into being one because you and I are separable from each other. You can have a world without Jeremy, not a world without Ben.
Speaker 2:And we're created.
Speaker 1:Correct. So if you have an eternal usia with three persons, it's going to collapse into a numerically identical usia. So it's not Christ, isn't homo Ussia? Identically the same with the father and son as he is with humanity? It's a little bit different because of separability, but you can see the term being used there right in two different contexts and that kind of is a good bridge for them because they actually agree with that.
Speaker 1:If you say, um, it's, if you say you and I are the same usia and then god is the same usia, they're like oh, okay, yeah, I agree with that, you know. So it's kind of a bridge, you know. Now you have to break down, like, just like I did with the metaphysics, you have to break it down. Why is it different? Why is god numerically one usia whereas we're a bunch of different Ussia, right, and so you have to explain that to them, you have to unpack it. But it helps them understand that this term homoousius is not straying, it's not this Greek philosophical development, invention of the devil, yeah, it's literally just precise terminology, right, explaining what the scriptures reveal.
Speaker 2:And it's explaining it in a way that precise terminology, right, explaining what the scriptures reveal and it's explaining it in a way that's correct, right, whereas, as you said them, without that understanding, they can't explain that. I hope and pray right now, ben, that there are Mormons, lds, who are listening to this right now, because I want them to truly unpack what you just said, because you're absolutely right, that is devastating to the more own position period, because you cannot then explain your own. God had your own theology, your own understanding of the father in relation to the son, but both sharing the same essence but yet being different persons. It sounds like that completely falls apart in their current understanding. Yeah, that's amazing, ben.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was actually pressing a Mormon buddy on this, and it's kind of funny because I actually think, without the hypostatic distinctions that we have in our Trinitarian theology, like they just collapse into being. It's a modalist, it's a modalist. It's a modalist, right, right, um, because they don't have these. They don't have these eternal, these ideas of like, eternal begottenness, right, you know, eternal spiration, which allow us to distinguish between the persons in the eternal sense, right, like they don't have that, right? So it just collapsed into modalism, which is hilarious, by the way, because if you read joseph smith's early writings, he actually was very modalist, in fact. In fact, they've changed this. But if you read Joseph Smith's early writings, he actually was very modalist, in fact, they've changed this. But if you go into the original Joseph Smith translation of Luke 10.22, everyone go look at the original Joseph Smith translation of Luke 10.22. It says the father is the son and the son is the father. If you go on the modern Mormon website, you can't even find Luke chapter 10 in the Joseph Smith translation anymore. They've removed it. Wow, luke chapter 10 is no longer the Joseph Smith translation. It's no longer on the Mormon website. The only thing that's on there is the KJV. So they've corrected this. But if you go to the original it's literally right there.
Speaker 1:So they have a concept called divine investiture, which is basically what the Arian does. For those of you that are familiar, the Arian uses a concept called agency. It basically just wiggle out of like any biblical passage that shows that Christ is truly God. They say, oh, it's just agency. So they say, when Thomas says my Lord and my God, he's actually talking to God through Jesus. So they do something really similar with something called divine investiture and it's so ad hoc. It basically allows them to just eisegete their theology into any biblical passage and just say it's just sort of like an agency type thing that's happening there. They can basically just create, you can make any theology work with the concept of agency or divine investiture.
Speaker 2:It's it's completely ad hoc which, which gets to the heart of really what mormonism is. Yeah, it's. It is a american invention that started just a couple hundred years ago in this country. It was a product of, as you know, joseph smith. Like you said, he was kind of, he had methodist. I think he had an uncle who was a product of, as you know, joseph Smith. Like you said, he was kind of, he had Methodists. I think he had an uncle who was a Methodist. They had Masonry in their family, which is not a surprise. Guess what Mormonism happens to include the secret handshakes and these various kind of vestigial elements of Freemasonry.
Speaker 1:One point on that. So Joseph Smith became a Freemason in 1842. He became a Master Mason after one day, which, by the way, is absolutely unheard of. What's really interesting is, he became a Mason in March of 1842. In May of 1842, they had their first temple endowment ceremony. So, by the way, keep in mind, mormonism's been going on for 12 years at this point. Right, yeah, started in 1830. Right In 1842. All of a sudden, joseph Smith implements this temple endowment ceremony a couple months after he becomes a Mason. As anyone can probably guess, there's tons of overlap between a lot of the Masonic ceremonies and the temple endowment ceremony, and so you can see the Masonic influence right there, he was a product of his age.
Speaker 2:Yeah, he literally was there's. No, that's not a prophet.
Speaker 1:That's a product? Yeah, absolutely. But what's really funny about it is you can actually look early in his life, in the 1820s, um. So there was during the 18 in the 1820s in new york, um, which is where he was living at the time as a teenager. Um, there was a lot of anti-mason uh propaganda. There was all these propaganda campaigns. What's really interesting is a lot of the verbiason propaganda. There was all these propaganda campaigns. What's really interesting is a lot of the verbiage used in those campaigns. You actually see very similar phrases in the Book of Mormon. So this is another example of kind of Smith pulling from. Now there's something called the expansion theory. Okay, so the Mormon apologists are very post hoc in a lot of their apologetics. One of the things is that the plates themselves they weren't big enough for what the size of the Book of Mormon actually produced.
Speaker 1:So one of their responses to this. There's a theologian by the name of Osler. I can't remember his first name, Blake Osler, I think is his name. Came up with this idea called expansion theory, and it's the idea that, yes, joseph Smith was indeed pulling from cultural context and cultural material, but he was sanctifying it. He was basically like taking that and using it for revelation.
Speaker 2:So this is becoming increasingly more common with modern Mormon apologists. This story of the Hebrews. There's this book. It was a fictional book that was written at the time. Joseph Smith had access to it. Whole passages pulled from that book put into the story. There's another one called the Lost War as well. Yeah, Exactly. Same thing. I'm sorry, that's not expansionism, that's plagiarism, right, right, to be frank about it. But that's fascinating that you have these. Well, explain this, ben, because you're an apologist yourself.
Speaker 1:How are these lay Mormon theologians, lay apologists, how are they getting away with this? Well, I actually love this question because one of the things that I've noticed as my approach to apologetics vice the modern Mormon is it's completely inversed. So, to your point, the Mormon apologist is basically post hoc, creating all these new theories to answer objections. Right Me, as an Orthodox apologist, I'm literally like, when I defend the Trinity, like I'm just defending, like on not three gods by St Gregory of Nyssa, Like I'm literally just going back to the fathers and that's the Trinitarian theology that I'm defending. And guess what? It answers all the objections, All these modern objections about the logical problem of the Trinity and all this stuff, the logical problem of the incarnation it was answered by St Athanasius All of it. These problems that showed up in our modern erafaced it's. All the answers to these objections are already there. Yeah, so it's completely flipped on its head compared to the modern Mormon apologist, who's trying to figure out, just scramble.
Speaker 1:Yeah, whereas all I'm doing is I'm literally just like defending the position that we've always had.
Speaker 2:Ben, this is a great conversation, Really appreciate it. We don't have to come to an end here right now, but if is there, that's what I was going to say.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I guess the final thought here I want to talk about, maybe like a bridge that you know Mormons have to orthodoxy uniquely. Yeah, it's a couple things have to orthodoxy uniquely. Yeah, um, it's a couple things, um, we're not, we're not scared away by some, the some of the language that they employ as far as, like us becoming gods right little g very uniquely little g right, because our saints talk about this all the time, all the time, saint athanasius, famously god became man, so that man, man might become god.
Speaker 1:Right, famously like, and this is, this is present in our modern day theology, right, um, so we're like, whereas the protestant gets like really antsy now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying theosis is the same thing as exaltation. Not at all, because exaltation, you become god by essence, theosis, you become god by participation in the energies.
Speaker 2:So and you'll be worshiped in their, in their view, in their period. Exalted and you will be worshipipped In their paradigm. You'll be exalted and you'll be worshipped, yeah, in their paradigm, yes.
Speaker 1:Like an analogy for theosis that really shows and exposes the difference is like imagine if you have an iron that you place in hot coals, right, and it stays in those hot coals for an extended period of time and then you remove it from the hot coals. Guess what the iron is going to maintain? It's going to retain a lot of the properties of the coals, right, but it's going to still be an iron, right, it's still made, it's still iron in essence, but because of its participation in the energies of the coals, right, it's retaining those properties, right. So, in the same way, when, if theosis, by our exposure to god, we retain some of the properties of god, right, yep, um, but only by participation. The energy is not becoming him by essence so and we still, we remain uniquely ourselves right, we remain uniquely a creature
Speaker 2:right, right amen yeah, that's beautiful ben.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's awesome yeah, so that's one. One bridge I feel like is you know, we're not scared away by some of that, um, theosis language, that language that we've been employing long before then. And then the other one would be just the monarchy of the Father. I mean, you say the Father is the one true God, and we're like, yeah, man, good to go, we've been saying that forever. So that's the Cappadocian view of the Trinity.
Speaker 1:In fact, st Gregory the Theologian went as far as to say that the son and the spirit can be called God when mentioned separately from the father. And what that means is, um, the father is God by identity. The son and the spirit are God by predication, right, um, the divinity is being predicated, it's being communicated to them, right, but the father is the prototype of the Godhead, but the father is the prototype of the Godhead. That's fantastic. So, yeah, all this to say, I kind of see those as like two ways that maybe they can see orthodoxy, as you know, maybe we don't have some of the same problems that they see evangelical Christianity or even Roman Catholicism have, right, all the problems with the second millennium papacy, like we don't got to deal with any of that you know, Right, like we don't.
Speaker 1:We don't got to do with any of that, you know, like, so, um, so, yeah, so all this to say, um, I guess in closing is, is that you know there's a reason why you go to parishes. In arizona, idaho, utah orthodox parishes are just flooded with mormon converts and it's because, like they struck gold. They're like this is exactly what I was looking for, this is what I thought was fulfilled.
Speaker 2:Yeah Right, joseph Smith, realizing it's been there all along. Amen, amen, ben, awesome. I'm going to ask you one last thing, just to kind of as to close us out. Your average person on the internet who happened upon this video right now they say to you, ben, you know, we appreciate all this philosophy and kind of highfalutin talk, but the reality is, that's just, you know, that's for you guys to talk about. All I know is that when I you know, I know my Mormon friends and they're good about their families and they're good people and they believe in Jesus too. So, you know, isn't this all just semantics?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, this is a question that's posited not just by Mormons, it's by, you know, protestants, by even sometimes Roman Catholics will ask if you know, does any of this really matter? And my answer is always like look, christ founded one church. There's only one church, founded in Matthew, chapter 16. Only one. Where's that church? Where is it today? Right. And if anyone outside of that church is not in that church, right.
Speaker 1:And so to reject Christ's body is to reject Christ, right? I mean, when you read 1 Corinthians, chapter 10, verse 16 through 18, st Paul uses the Eucharist, right, the Eucharist in the one church as the defining factor for what makes the church one, one Right. The reason why we're one is because we have one cup. Yes, we partake of one body, right. So you know. I would just go back to what I said originally. You know, if you had to give a 7th century Christian, an 8th century Christian, a 9th century Christian, advice as a Mormon, you, as a Mormon, had to give them advice. Where are you going to go to find truth? What are you going to tell them? You're going to tell them to go to an Orthodox church, you know. So I always kind of you know when Mormons answer that, because they have to answer that that way.
Speaker 2:I always say, well, you should take your own advice and go to an Orthodox church. I love it, ben. I love it, ben Ben. Where can our audience find you? Where do you want them to look?
Speaker 1:you up at yeah, I'm on X at Orthodox Luigi, on Instagram at Lang Luigi and then YouTube at Lang Luigi, excellent.
Speaker 2:Resources when someone who wants to learn more and delve deeper anything off the top of your head, yeah.
Speaker 1:I always recommend religion of the apostles by father Steven Young. That book really lays the groundwork, in fact, to all the Mormons. He even walks through the baptism for the dead passage, which I know is a big one for a lot of the Mormons. He has like a whole section dedicated to that and explaining the actual like first century interpretation of it. That is not the Mormon interpretation.
Speaker 1:But that book lays the groundwork because it talks about the continuity of the second temple Jews with the first century Christians. Because what he, what father Steven young, points out in that book is look, like St Paul, these first century Christians, they didn't see themselves as converts. They saw themselves as they got their timeline wrong. Right, they were still members of the Hebrew religion, but they just realized they're in the Messianic era. Now, right, it's a new era, it's the Messianic era. So they didn't see themselves as converts. And what we have in the Orthodox Church is we have this continuity with the Second Temple Jews themselves as converts. And what we have in the Orthodox Church is we have this continuity with the Second Temple Jews. I mean to the point where we literally have the liturgy of St James, the brother of Jesus. I mean we literally have that liturgy right in the Orthodox Church. So yeah, that book is just phenomenal for anyone inquiring into Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2:Excellent, ben. Thank you so much. It was a real pleasure. Thank you for listening this long. We will see you on the next one. Bye-bye. Please tell me you're recording Mario.