Source: Pastor: I was SCARED of Joseph Smith, until… Channel: Keystone Published: March 16, 2026 | Archived: May 30, 2026

Video: Pastor: I was SCARED of Joseph Smith, until…
Channel: Keystone
Published: March 16, 2026
Duration: 59:50
Views: 77,554
Category: Education
Video ID: 1l846_9931g

Description

In this interview, David Snell sits down with Evangelical pastor Kyle Beshears to talk about Latter-day Saint history, controversy, and Kyle’s new book, “40 Questions about Mormonism.”

Here’s a link to Kyle’s book, “40 Questions About Mormonism,” if you’d like to check it out: https://tinyurl.com/3um4kduc

Video editor: Rustin Van Katwyk rustinv@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/keystonelds/ Insta: https://www.instagram.com/keystonelds/ Website: https://www.keystonelds.com Apple podcast: https://tinyurl.com/3rx4cw4u Spotify podcast: https://tinyurl.com/33r9f737 Amazon podcast: https://tinyurl.com/5cendacy

Chapters: 0:00 Joseph Smith TERRIFIED me 1:07 Why I trust Kyle 2:23 Why Latter-day Saints? 5:22 Kyle challenges missionaries 8:28 LDS history vs. Evangelical history 13:20 Is the LDS Church a cult? 15:27 Are Latter-day Saints Christian? 18:30 Are Latter-day Saints going to Hell? 21:41 Was Joseph Smith a fraud? 27:54 Kyle’s motivations 31:50 Talking about vs. talking with 34:47 Witnesses & spiritual eyes 41:20 Using the Hurlbut Affidavits 45:48 Is inaccuracy “anti-Mormon”? 49:32 Worshipping Victory 53:06 The greatest commandment 56:08 Making mistakes 59:27 One true church

Tags

faith and beliefs lds mormon latter day saints jesus christ church saints unscripted david snell faith crisis CES letter mormonism keystone

Transcript — YouTube panel (human-authored)

0:00 Do you believe that Joseph Smith was an outright fraud? At one point in my life, I would have said, “Yeah, how could he not be?” And actually, I saved the chapter \[music\] on Joseph Smith for last because Joseph Smith terrified me because I knew I had to present him as accurately as possible. Kyle Bashers is an evangelical pastor \[music\] at Mars Hill Church in Mobile, Alabama, and the author of the new book 40 Questions About Mormonism. I assume you probably thought we were all going to hell. Has that changed? Am I going to hell?

0:34 There’s actually a bunch of questions tucked away in there. Saying Latter-day Saints worship an utterly different Jesus is both rashly uncharitable \[music\] and yet precisely true. Look, Latter-day Saints believe that there was a man born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, and rose again 3 days later. And every single one of those points I got from the Book of Mormon. So to say that Mormonism has like no connection whatsoever \[music\] to Christianity is not true. Then comes the but I wanted to let our audience know a little bit more about you from my experience and perspective. I first kind of got to know you through your blog, through Substack, and it was your article kind of responding to um some inflammatory things that an evangelical pastor had said about Latter-day Saints, but it was troubling to me when this other uh pastor had said some things and I was thinking, you know, Latter Day Saints,

1:39 we can respond to this as much as we want. Where are our evangelical friends that are willing to disagree with us on theology or whatever, but also say like what this person is doing is wrong and how they’re approaching this is wrong. And then I found the article you wrote on Substack and I was like this is exactly what I’m talking about. This is what I’m looking for. And so that instilled a lot of trust in me towards you even though we disagree on religion and whatnot. But I I just I really appreciated that article. So thank you for that. Yeah. Thank you, David.

2:19 So uh really the thing top of mind for me right now is what the heck is an evangelical pastor from Mobile, Alabama doing writing a book about Latter-day Saints? I am fascinated by the story of the Latter-day Saints. Yeah. How? Why? Like like how did you even Oh, I see. Like me personally, right? Yeah. You personally, like what led you to be fascinated by our history? I don’t have any Latter-day Saints in my family. I’ve never been Latter- Day Saint. Um, and the first time I ever encountered anything that had to do with the church was when I discovered a Book of Mormon in my grandfather’s study.

3:04 Okay. And uh, he was interested in religion and he he had collected a few books and I saw that there was a Book of Mormon and I remember taking it down and looking at the pictures and thinking like, “This is weird. Why is Jesus in the Americas?” The Americas, right? And I was told by my family like just don’t have anything to do with the Mormons. Like we don’t we don’t associate with them. And that was kind of like telling a kid not to press the red button or Yeah. \[laughter\] As is typical of an evangelical in my age. I grew up at kind of the end of the satanic panic and then kind of like like the uh eb of the countercult movement.

3:48 And so my first encounter with um the LDS church as far as like learning about it was through the God makers. So they I remember the Sunday they rolled in the VHS. Wow. They did that. Yeah. Yeah. They rol we rolled it in. They rolled in the VHS into our class and they showed us the God makers. It was kind of a series that the who whomever the lay leader was was kind of doing. We’re going to do Jehovah’s Witnesses this week and then Christian Science next week and then Mormonism the next week and then Roman Catholicism the next week because all of that’s a cult.

4:27 And so I remember being really bored by the movie until the cartoon. Okay. And and that was that was disturbing to me. Like I just couldn’t couldn’t believe that people believed what was being told to me. Yeah. in that cartoon. And so I had to know like is this really what millions of people believe? And so I asked what what kind of resources do we have to learn more about Mormonism? And there’s deep suspicion like why? Like are you interested in joining? No, no, no. And they uh said, “Okay, well, you’re going to need to read this. It’s the best work. It’s like the standard.” Oh, no. For Mormonism, Kingdom of the Cults. Mhm.

5:11 If you’ve ever read Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, it’s a mixed bag, just to say politely. And uh I was like, you know what? I’m I think this is it for me for the rest of my life. Like, I want to study Mormonism. Um I’m convinced it’s a cult. I’m convinced that people in it are all deceived, that they’re all brainwashed, and I’m going to be one of those people that like helps them come out. So, I study up and the idea is like, I’m going to pull out as many as I can. And then I meet my first missionaries and they were my age was early 20s or something. And they were really gracious with me. They were really patient with me. And I have it in the book, the the exact moment because I remember it very vividly. I said, “You believe you’re going to be gods one day?” And he said like, “No, we believe we’re going to become like God. Is that something that you don’t believe?” like kind of like uno reverse card. And I was like, well, yeah, but it’s different. And they’re

6:08 like, how? I was like, I don’t know, but I know you’re wrong. Yeah. \[laughter\] Right. And so I walked away from that experience kind of being frustrated because I felt like I was being lied to by somebody. Either the LDS missionaries were lying to me and they were playing koi about what the church actually taught or Walter Martin was lying to me. And so I I had to figure out like what’s the truth here? And that led to quite literally a lifelong pursuit of trying to understand the Latter-day Saint story, faith, tradition. And the book’s kind of a bit of a report on that. I ended up being far more interested in Latter-day Saint history. Maybe we could talk about why later, but I went to Southern Seminary in Louisville where I did a PhD in religion and I wrote my dissertation on an offshoot of LDS history. Um the a group led by a man who claimed to be a prophet named James String. Uh and then from that it opened up door after door after door. So I started presenting on Latter-day Saint

7:14 history at uh like Mormon History Association, John Whitmer Historical Association. I serve as a board member on the John Whitmer Historical Association now. Um I published papers on that topic. Um published a paper on a a a woman named Ununice Ross Kenny who is a follower both Joseph and James um in the Journal of Mormon History. And uh I’ve published uh actually I presented at BYU a number of times on church history. I I wrote a article on the 1832 first vision account.

7:49 Mhm. Uh on why I think it’s peculiar and that was ended up being published um by uh in BYU and then now that book. So that’s a long I guess long story as to like how do I go from from there to like right literally right here. Yeah. Sitting in this chair and having this conversation. I find it interesting because like I love LDS history. Makes sense cuz I’m LDS. Sure. It seems like you’re almost more interested in LDS history than evangelical history. Is that true or is it just one’s like more professional, one’s more a personal interest?

8:26 I don’t know much about evangelical history. See, that’s what fascinates me. Like what? Because obviously evangelicalism resonates with you as more true than Latter-day Saint theology, right? But you’re more interested in Latter- Day Saint history. Yeah. And I’m I don’t know if there’s a question there. I’m just pointing out that you’re weird. \[laughter\] I’ll take it. I I think what you’re what you’re poking at is really interesting and it’s an observation that I’ve made over the years between like evangelicals and Latter- Day Saints. So, I can confidently say I know more about Latter-day Saint history than I do evangelical history. And and that that’s a very peculiar thing. But what you’re what you’re saying is like, how can you be more interested in Latter- Day Saint history than you are in evangelical history? Um, isn’t the doctrines the the thing that’s more important? I think I’ve come to the realization that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints differ in where

9:23 they place emphasis in the relationship of doctrine and history. So, for evangelicals, we are very much a people of a historical theology. We care very deeply about tenants of the Reformation. We care deeply about the thought and writings of people like Martin Luther or John Calvin. But when it comes to the story, we don’t really care. I mean, some folks might. You can get a whole PhD in church history in in our seminaries and our institutions, but on an average Sunday, if you were to ask somebody in an evangelical church um to tell them the story about John Calvin and Geneva, they’re not going to be able to tell you where Geneva is on the map, right? Or what that significance is. But you ask them, can you tell me about um doctrines of grace, predestination, election, John Calvin? Oh, now you’ve opened up a can of worms. and they’re ready to talk, right? Because it’s the doctrine. Yeah.

10:21 Latter-day Saints though, I think, are a bit different. They’re they’re not so much a people of a historical theology as they are a theological history. In other words, a history that began in 1820 and has been unfolding to this present day. And Latter-day Saints see themselves participating in as doctrine is revealed and developed and practiced in. And so for a Latter- Day Saint, they want to know where where am I in this story? If we’re in chapter 18, what character am I and where where am I in that story? Doctrine is important obviously, but it’s less important than the story and the practices and the participation in it or it’s like co-important like they’re intertwined together almost almost to a point where you can’t take them apart. And when you start to take them apart, um, and that’s what we do as evangelicals, the doctrine doesn’t make sense anymore. Like if it’s if it’s like orphaned from its historical context, it’s it’s difficult to explain and even

11:25 more difficult to understand. So yeah, you say there’s like not a question in there, but I think there’s a really interesting observation. Yeah. Uh, in in that point. Well, I haven’t thought about it that way because kind of what I’m understanding is like Latter Day Saints, we believe in an ongoing restoration and because of that, maybe we see ourselves not only as recipients of the story, but as active participants in the story as it continues to unfold. Whereas maybe evangelicals or or Protestants in general maybe feel more like they are recipients of a story that happened. That’s exactly right.

12:04 And they have the doctrines and such that they are looking back on and um you know applying to their lives whereas for us it’s kind of an ongoing thing. That’s interesting. Yeah. And and I think another um point of evidence for that would be if if I was to ask um an evangelical like give me the you know the wavetop differences between Armenianism and Calvinism, they’re going to be able to do it. If I say tell me the last names of your great-grandparents.

12:35 I had no clue. I don’t even know where they’re from. in uh Latter-day Saints, it’s like, “Hey, can you can you define for me the nuances and the implications of Joseph Smith’s King Flet sermon as it relates to classical trinitarianism and the conception of God in the church?” Oh, I I know it’s there. I don’t know. Well, tell me about your pioneer ancestry. And they’re about to like spill a book on me. Yeah. Like I’ve I’ve had it happen to me. they can go back generations. And so I I it’s anecdotal.

13:10 I can’t prove it, but I think that that’s one of the differences between the two of us. And if you can recognize that, it helps um create a space for a better conversation. So, you went through this uh this process of diving into Latterday Saint history and you’re gaining interest there, and you’re having some of your misconceptions uh dismissed or corrected. You said going into it you were like, “These guys are a cult. I’m here to pull them out.” I assume you probably thought we were all going to hell. Has that changed? Am I going to hell?

13:46 You David Snell. Am I David Snell as a Latter Day Saint? Maybe as a as a representative of I see Latter-day Saints. The conversation is a little different if we think each other is damned for eternity. Oh, for sure. Right. Okay. Um, so hopefully it doesn’t come off as just like uh any kind of gotcha question. No, makes total sense. So there’s there’s actually a bunch of questions like tucked away in there. Um, I think the easiest one to answer is do I think Mormonism is a cult? And no, I don’t.

14:16 There’s a lot of reasons for that, but the the main reason is that when we think about the term cult, the things that conjure to mind are Jonestown or the Branch Devidians or Heaven’s Gate. And I can’t overlay that on top of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I I don’t understand how the Latter-day Saint church could be a cult and at the same time tolerate diversity of views and opinions because that’s not characteristic of a cult. So if So we’re in the we’re in the podcast world like literally right now.

14:48 Yeah. And some names that come to mind that exist on a spectrum would be somebody like Dan Mlelen and then Jacob Hansen. You have very different worldviews, frameworks, perspectives on things. And yet, as far as I rec know, they’re both members in good standing of of the church. That does not make sense to me. If if this is a cult, a cult would press down to ensure that both of those guys are like in line. And then in other issues too like feminism, LGBTQ issues, Mormonism is not a monolith.

15:23 Yeah, put it like that. So if it’s not a monolith, I I struggle to see it being a cult. The other question, so are you going to hell? Are are believing because of Latter-day Saint beliefs? If I if I believe like a Latter-day Saint, I see does that justify eternal punishment? Yeah. So the you have to end there, but where you have to begin is like what is what is the church’s relationship to Christianity?

15:48 Uh and usually the question begins like is Mormonism Christian? And the way that I think about it is it’s it’s a yes and no answer. The the yes part comes from historically speaking, of course. Like you can’t explain the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without Christianity. It’s a part of Christianity in the sense that in 1820 it came from somewhere. It didn’t just drop out of the sky and that there is so much overlap and there are so many doctrinal and practical things that are shared with Christianity.

16:26 \[snorts\] I cringe a bit when I hear people say Mormon Mormonism is not Christian whatsoever. I I think I do something clever in the book where I say something about christologology. So, what is the doctrine of Jesus Christ? I start that chapter out by saying something to the effect of like saying that Latter-day Saints worship an utterly different Jesus is both rationally uncharitable and yet precisely true at the same time, right? And then I go to say like, look, Latter-day Saints believe that there was a man from Nazareth, born of a virgin, who assembled disciples, performed miracles, died for the sins of the world, and rose again 3 days later. And every single one of those points I got from the Book of Mormon. So to say that Mormonism has like no connection whatsoever to Christianity is is not true.

17:20 Then comes the but. The butt is confessionally as far as like creeds like what has the Christian church believed for centuries to be core tenants of the reality of who God is or how salvation occurs, what is the church. Mormonism obviously is ruptured from that. Sure. And uh the first vision would be the place that I would go to to say I take it maybe a a more charitable view of um some of the accounts. I understand the historical context in which they were being remembered by Joseph and recorded. All the creeds are an abomination. If you know what Joseph’s going through at that time, you might empathize a bit with his frustration and anger. But still the rapture is there and and it then there’s an intentional breaking away from what I call confessional or credle Christianity. So institutionally uh I struggle with that because of the first vision and and what followed. But I think the question of um inst whether an institution is Christian or whether individuals are Christian is also

18:28 they’re parallel but but they’re separate as well. I want to look at less the institution and more the individual to ask Latter-day Saints specifically like what do you place your faith in? When I look at the gospels and I look at the New Testament, people that are at most risk of forfeiting eternal life are the proud, people that reject the gospel willingly, people that um remain in immorality after being warned to repent. Um people that um perpetuate lies or or deception knowingly. And you have to go to an individual because I’ve been a pastor long enough to realize this to recognize that some people can go through the motions and and put up a really good facade and you just assume they’re a Christian. Um, and some of the people that you would never think would be in actual union with Christ turn out it’s true. So I prefer to go individual by individual. Does that make sense?

19:39 Yeah, that makes sense. And the way I usually approach it is, you know, the whole are Latter Day Saints Christian thing, I kind of boil it down to, well, it depends on your definition of what a Christian is. Like if it involves, you know, the creeds, if it’s credle Christianity or traditional Christianity, no. Then if that is if that has to be your definition, then no, we’re not because we don’t adhere to some of those things. Uh, but if your definition is, well, do we strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?

20:05 Then I’d say yes. But I think what we can all hopefully agree on is that Latter-day Saints are not Protestant Christians. We don’t pretend to be. You got Catholic Christians, you got Protestant Christians. Is there a space for Latter-day Saint Christians? You know, so let me ask this. The question just came up because you bring bring up um Roman Catholicism and I think that that’s a good analog because neither of us are Roman Catholic. Yeah.

20:31 Um, do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church holds like proper priesthood authority? No. No. Um, do you believe that there are Roman Catholics who are in actual union with Christ and and could be redeemed? Absolutely. Like I feel the same way about about Roman Catholics. I’ve met Roman Catholics that I’m like, I I don’t think the mass is saving you, but I see that you have genuine faith and I believe that that’s what’s saving you. And in some ways, I feel similar to Latter Day Saints that I’ve met throughout my life. Um, I can’t look at all Latter-day Saints and be like, I think they’re all going to heaven because I’ve met some Latter- Day Saints that I’m like, you are prideful and angry and I don’t even think you believe the things that you’re telling me.

21:12 But I’ve got those people in my own church. Yeah. So, it’s messy, but I don’t think we should play God. And I think we should all strive for um proclaiming and encouraging one another to follow Christ as he’s represented to us in his gospel. And for me, that’s obviously the New Testament. That’s a fair answer. I like that. Thank you. Okay. History question for you. This is a tough one, but this is one that I think a lot of flatter saints are going to be thinking about.

21:42 Do you believe that Joseph Smith was an outright fraud? That’s a great question. And at one point in my life, Oda said, “Yeah, it’s obvious. How could he not be? Angels, sear stones, gold plates. Come on.” But in the writing process of this book, I came to a different conclusion. And actually, I saved the chapter on Joseph Smith for last because I was terrified. like Joseph Smith terrified me because I knew I had to as a traditional Christian removed by centuries present him as accurately as possible.

22:21 Mhm. So the the way I went about doing this was, you know, I’m I’m I’ve read and I’m very familiar with Fon Brody and Richard Bushman and John Turner’s most recent biography came out right around the time that I was writing this chapter. Um Dan Fogle. So whether you’re a friend or a critic of the church, I’ve read as much as I could with Joseph Smith. And I had this kind of idea of him.

22:46 And I said, you know what? If somebody in the future were writing about me and they were only taking other people’s word for it, how would I feel about that? And I don’t think I I like that. But if I had left thousands of papers, journals, correspondents, documents that I had written, wouldn’t I want a person to take that into deep consideration? The answer is yes. So I read um as much as possible of the Joseph Smith papers. I have I own every single volume. My parents were convinced I was converting because I would ask for another Joseph Smith volume or Joseph Smith the papers volume for Christmas. They were just it was a matter of time expensive. Yeah.

23:33 But I have the entire set and what I did was I took in anticipation of writing the Joseph Smith um chapter which is short but I took uh six months and I read all of his journals and then every single document that he wrote that was correspondence. So, not his legal stuff, but and then I said, “Okay, who who did I just meet and I met an extremely complicated man?” \[laughter\] I don’t think Joseph Smith was an outright con, but in my conviction, I don’t think he was a prophet either. I think that Joseph Smith was sincere in his desire for salvation.

24:20 And I have zero doubt that the atmosphere of evangelical Christianity in the frontier in the early 19th century was not conducive for him to find salvation. I think his critique even at a young age of division was biting and true. It it was hard for me to come to that conclusion. Joseph is right on this. like we should if there’s one Lord, one faith, one baptism, why did we have this 13, 14 year old kid, not be able to find truth in these competing churches? So, I empathize with him deeply at that point in his life. Obviously, I’m not a Latter- Day Saint, so the the episodes that follow, I I’m not following him.

25:12 But as he continues, I don’t think that sincerity for his desire to see Christianity healed waines. I think it actually increases as he grows in this um prophetic office of leading people. So on the one hand, in the negative, for Joseph Smith to produce revelations that are in the first person active voice of Jesus Christ, that bothers me deeply. Yeah. and and I have to hold him at arms length for that reason. People ask me like, “What do you think about the Book of Mormon and its relationship with authority?” And I say, “Actually, the doctrine and covenants is harder for me,” right? Um because of because of the way that God is presented in those is actively speaking through prophet.

26:02 On the other hand, when I read Joseph, especially in in the Nauvoo period where he is um visiting people during an epidemic, praying over them, um mourning a woman who lost her child on Christmas Eve, which means he’s doing it on Christmas Day. Um counseling people during church trials, standing up for somebody when everybody else was pretty sure they were guilty. There’s a sincerity and I even dare say like a pastoral side to him that I immediately saw as a pastor. Weddings, the funerals, the complication of trying to guide people through hardship. I know exactly what that’s like. And when I saw that Joseph in his own way was participating in that kind of thing, I couldn’t unsee that. So I’m not comfortable yet kind of like coming down on the categories of like was he a pious fraud or any of those theories, but I I will never throw away this this element of sincerity behind him. I just don’t follow him in where his sincerity led him. I feel like we

27:23 could do a whole series of episodes just on that question. Oh, for sure. But no, I can respect I can respect while disagreeing in some aspects. I can respect that viewpoint. Okay. So, I haven’t read this whole thing yet. Okay. Uh I’ve read a good portion of it. I’ve generally liked what I’ve read so far. I have great things to say about it. There are some things that I want to push back on. Oh.

27:49 A little bit which we’ll talk about later. Okay. It’ll be interesting. That’s a little little tease for the audience there. Uh, but I want to know what motivated you to write this book in the first place. I wanted to first contribute to like my tribe’s writing on the church, but do it in a way that I hadn’t really seen before, which was if you were to pick up a book about Mormonism written from an evangelical, like what do you think you’re going to pick up? Dropping the hammer. Yeah. On Latter Day Saints.

28:23 Yeah. It’s going to assume a lot. It’s going to take very specific presuppositions and it’s going to have a very specific goal almost to the point where it it drives nearly every book I’ve ever written towards missional pragmatism. In other words, they need to be converted and here’s how you’re going to do it. So, there’s a lot of how-to guides. I actually have a book, I believe, called How to Deal with Mormons. Pretty sure it’s from like the 1950s. So, how do you deal Deal with them? I wonder what they say. Okay, it was interesting.

28:53 I can imagine what they say. The other kind of book that’s pretty common and it goes all the way back to the early church exposees. So, here’s the assumption. The Mormons are lying. So, I’m either ex Mormon or I’ve been privy to insider information and now I’m going to spill the beans. Um, that’s pretty much your options. Yeah. Still to this day, right? Sure. So I wanted to do something different. I wanted to write a book from a from a you know generally traditional Christian perspective that simply lays out the story, describes practices, discusses doctrine at the 30,000 ft introductory view in a way that a Latter-day Saint could look at it and say, “Yeah, 90% I don’t think I agree with this. I wish you would have said this differently, which is going to happen.

29:53 It’s gonna happen. Yeah. But generally speaking, like I wanted to become bilingual and I know I’ve got a funny accent and I said the idiom wrong, but do you understand what I’m saying? Yeah. And then Larry Ter say yes. And I say okay. Then turn around to the evangelicals and say I think this is what they’re trying to say. and to also implicitly model how I think we should be engaging each other, which is to to try to understand the Latter-day Saint position as best as possible before we ever bring up a disagreement. Um, and it’s written for evangelicals.

30:29 It’s not written to Latter-day Saints for for Yeah. traditional Christians because it’s almost like a manual. At the end of every chapter you have like summary and questions. Yeah. So the intention behind the series the 40 questions about is a series that’s published by Creel Academic which is uh evangelical publisher and these books are um pretty common in our seminaries. So for us seminaries graduate training for min ministry or pastoral positions. Are you saying that this could be a text that uh could be used in an evangelical institution to teach graduate students about Latter-day Saints?

31:06 Not only do I think it could, I know for a fact it will be starting in the fall. So, like when students get their book list, this is going to be on the list. This is going to be on it in at least two institutions that I’m aware of because I know people that are there and they’re like, “Hey, we’re adding your book to this syllabus. we’d like you to hop on Zoom for an hour and chat with us. That actually gives me a lot of hope.

31:29 Yeah. Because uh I appreciate your approach in this book even though there are some things that we disagree on. But but you know, like you said, like 99% of it I’m like this is Yeah. Like I’ve seen a heck of a lot worse. I’ll give you that much. \[laughter\] You know, like so I’m glad that this is uh the approach students will be exposed to. So among Latter-day Saints um there’s this ongoing phenomenon where there are a lot of people who want to talk about us instead of talking with us. Um now this is a book written by an evangelical for evangelicals but I’m curious did you have Latter-day Saints review it in part or in whole to check for accuracy or things like that?

32:16 I did. Yeah. So, I share that concern and I think it’s um a bit disingenuous to present a book like this to an evangelical audience without having had Latter-day Saints at least give it a cursory look. So, the way that I I went about doing this is I substacked or blogged every single uh chapter that I wrote in its draft form, right? So, relationship with your publisher, you’ve got to respect that. I can’t just like throw the book out. Yeah. on the internet.

32:49 But during that time, I had a number of Latter-day Saints who would would read it and then give me feedback. And there was very few times that I didn’t take the feedback into consideration. And the and the times I did not take the feedback into consideration was, “Brother, I love you, but that is your very niche specific take on this. This is not what I see the rest of, you know, the the church teaching. So, I’ve got to go with the generality here. And I know that’s painful, but the book is not intended to be a dissertation on every single view of of Mormonism, right? It’s got to be the 30,000 foot view broadly introductory thing.

33:29 So, that was honestly the only feedback that I couldn’t take into consideration. Um, and then when I when I had a draft form of the book, I would sample chapters to people. So, I crowdsourced. I said, “Hey, I’m done with these 40 questions. I want half evangelical, half LDS. You pick a chapter, I’ll send it to you, and what you’re getting is prepub. You’re getting the whole chapter. I’m not holding anything back.” And so, uh, funny enough, I had Latter-day Saints all raise their hand for the spiciest chapters. So, what’s the book of Abraham?

34:04 Uh, what is, uh, the doctrine of eternal progression, right? Temple, uh, what’s the endowment ceremony? Right? And I’m eternally grateful for the feedback that I got back from them because they ran the gambit from your average everyday Latter-day Saint that just randomly connected with me on social media to um professors whether it’s at BYU or uh Utah State, people that were Latter-day Saint and were experts in their field.

34:32 So I I wanted to ensure that there was sufficient Latter-day Saint fingerprints on this to represent generally speaking, yeah, what you guys believe. And I had to have Latter Day Saints help me. It would be ridiculous if I didn’t. So there are a few representations in the book, okay, that I don’t totally agree with. And so I thought it would be interesting if we discussed them and uh kind of see where it takes us. Let’s do it.

35:02 So uh the first one that I want to talk about is John Whitmer, one of the witnesses maintained his testimony about the plates despite being excommunicated from the church, lending credence to his word. However, Martin Harris, another witness, complicated his testimony by having repeatedly admitted the internal subjective nature of his visionary experience, argued one historian. When pressed by interrogators, Harris claimed to have seen the plates with his spiritual eyes or the eye of faith. So on this one, from my perspective, what I noticed was that I feel like it was kind of trying to provide an exit door for evangelicals by saying there was this one guy, John Whitmer, who upheld his testimony despite being excommunicated, but then also you got this Martin Harris guy who saw it in a vision or subjective subjectified his his testimony. So, so from my perspective, I’m thinking, well, it wasn’t just John Whitmer who was excommunicated and upheld his testimony

36:05 throughout the rest of his life. It was, you know, you have all three of all three of either leaving the church, being excommunicated and then later coming back or either way just still upholding their testimony throughout their life. I felt like you were trying to balance it. Like on the one hand, there’s this one anecdote. On the other hand, there’s this other anecdote, but it came off to me as a little unbalanced because there were so many other witnesses that kind of further bolster that that first line. Yeah.

36:37 And then with the spiritual eyes thing, you have David Whitmer saying, you know, of course we saw it through spiritual eyes or through the eye of faith or whatever. you can’t see spiritual things unless it’s through the eye of faith. And then I also have commentary, biblical commentary, uh, from this kind of same 1800s period where they’re talking about using spiritual eyes to see real things, see things that are from the spiritual realm, so to speak, but that are physical realities in front of them. And so I read spiritualize and and I think well if other people were using that term to describe real things and we accept that as reality for them why is it that we interpret spiritualize for Martin Harris as oh it was just his imagination. You know what I mean?

37:30 Oh yeah for sure. So there’s a bunch of things in there. Um, I will say to set maybe listeners at ease for future projects, I have uh a massive section devoted to just the witnesses in the next book that I’m writing here. So, I get to like tease out these ideas and not just like set two next to each other and move on because the word count police Yeah. is like on my case. And then structurally, you’ve just pointed out to me that I kind of broke a rule.

38:01 Typically what I’d want to do, and this was like an implicit way of writing throughout the whole book, is to first present the thing that evangelicals, if they’re familiar with, already know, and then to provide the counter. Yeah. Right. So, the the most common thing about the Book of Mormon witnesses that an evangelical would know is the fact that Martin Harris said he saw it with his spiritual eyes. Cuz that’s the exit door.

38:27 That’s the exit door. Never. I did not know that there were people like John Whitmer that were like, “No, I literally saw them.” Or other other witnesses that weren’t even supposed to see them claimed that they did. Yeah. Um I don’t remember the fella’s name off the top of my head, but he said he saw corner and actually saw metallic Yeah. color to them, which has led me to the conclusion there was in fact a material artifact that that was present. So, um, historically, the historical context of 19th century, what does it mean to see with spiritual eyes or the eyes of faith? That’s complicated because remind me and tell me if I’m wrong here. Was Bart Harris the one that that in the original testimony saw in a vision the plates after he was removed from the forest where the others were praying that they would receive this vision of it. That’s kind of like what I had in mind when I was writing this chapter, how I was interpreting it.

39:33 I don’t know if there’s a question there. And and Richard Bushman in his latest gold plates book convinced me of this. There there is an element of um religious experience or subjectivity for the witnesses that has to be present because for them this isn’t just an ordinary thing. Sure. And why would you expect them to describe what they saw in a way that would satisfy like a modern empiricist audience?

40:04 Yeah. like how do you put words to a a supernatural experience like they had type thing, right? So, I I’ll be honest, I struggle with Martin Harris. Some of the other testimonies a little cleaner, but at the same time, I I’m not a betting man because I don’t gamble. But I think for most evangelicals, they’re to read that John Whitmer saw and maintained his testimony after excommunication will be the first time they’ve ever learned that before. So, I know there’s sections like this in this book, but like uh baby steps, like evangelicals are really not familiar with with this story.

40:44 Yeah. Um and I’m trying to uh present in a way that is fair and informative without saying like let bygones be bygones. There’s there’s no differences between us. Sure. And yeah, you’ve got um a dual audience that you’ve got to be careful with, right? I understand that that perspective, but point taken. And I am glad we’re having this conversation because I still got time to go back in the book I’m writing right now to kind of see like am I am I treating Martin Harris the way I’m supposed to be treating him.

41:20 Okay. The last thing I wanted to mention talking about the Smith family and their reputation in the Palmyra Manchester area quite mixed mixed reputation. So in short, not one of the family had the least claims to respectability, said one acquaintance bluntly. They were poor as well as worthless claimed another neighbor. A point amplified by 51 others who asserted the family was destitute of that moral character which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. That’s harsh.

41:54 Those quotes are harsh against them. Um, were you drawing from the Herbit affidavit there? Yes. Okay. from a Latter-day Saint perspective. And I know you’ve got the word count police on you, but it would have been helpful to explain what those hurlbot affidavits are. Kind of some of the motivations behind them. Money. Money, legal issues. Yeah. I’m not the kind of person that’s going to say you can’t use the Herbit affidavit. You can’t use Mormonism unveiled, but I think it would be helpful to note, hey, so there’s this guy named Philast, \[laughter\] Dr.

42:28 Philastes Herbett who which is which is his name which is his name not a title not a title yeah and he was just raging against Joseph Smith and he convinced these people to sponsor him to go out to Paulmyra after Mormonism was becoming controversial to find specifically dirt on the family. Yeah. And I think that putting these quotes within that context is helpful because then you have other quotes from people around town that are like, “Yeah, Phil is her, he came and interviewed me about the family, but when he didn’t find what he was looking for, you know, he left or whatever.” Just the idea that this is not like a random selection of people from around town. It’s he’s there preaching sermons against Joseph Smith and then he has this paper that he’s like, “Will you guys put your name on this?” Yeah. So, I think that would have been helpful because otherwise it just makes it seem like everybody’s like, “Yeah,

43:25 these guys are nuts.“ Fair enough. So, in this chapter, what I was trying to do was and and um Grace, please, this is chapter four, which is who is Joseph Smith? It was the one that terrified me and I lost sleep over. My goal with this paragraph in specific was to to set up here was the here was the array of opinions about the Smiths. So obviously those are the you’re going to take from the Hurbert affidavits the most intense opposition and criticism to the Smith family and hit pause.

44:00 Immediately following though I do say others didn’t mind the Smiths described them as big hearty fellows and a good family who made good neighbors. Yeah, to your credit I wish I had more. And so I dug and dug and dug and I looked for more positive views of the Smiths. But even in our world today, positivity doesn’t sell. Negativity sells. And so as a historian, I had ample amounts of negative like material.

44:32 Yeah. Of the Smith’s enemies to go off of and very scant amounts of like positive. So maybe that’s a failure of me on a as a historian and there’s more um that I’m not familiar with. I wasn’t trying to paint a picture of who I think the Smiths were. I was trying to paint a picture of who people thought the Smiths were, right? And set the historical context of like this is the world and the family that Joseph lived in. He was in a family of people who who hated him and he was in a family of people like I jive with the Smiths. Like they’re they’re all right. Like what’s the big deal? Like yeah, the detail that I think would have been helpful is just noting that these perspectives are colored by this context, so to speak. Because you have, for example, like William Smith saying people were fine with us until Joseph had his vision and started talking about, you know, his revelations and then everybody just like turned against us. And there’s maybe context from that quote from William Smith that

45:35 needs to be explained. So that was my qual with that. I agree with you on that. the context of it. Yep. But to your credit, I agree with you that you had a lot more negative information that you could have drawn off of that you didn’t. Speaking to kind of the interfaith dialogue we’re having here, I saw an episode of you recently on Hello Saints with Jeff, who’s fantastic. You talked about kind of the spectrum of like what’s anti- Mormon and what is syncric, I think was the word. Synretism.

46:04 Synretism. You put up this great spectrum and there was a conversation about what is the difference between being pmical or essentially standing up boldly for what you believe versus anti- Mormonism or anti-eangelicalism. But one of the questions I came away with was where does accuracy factor into the equation? Because oftent times I will have a pmical discussion with somebody and they’re not outright just brash and using the Book of Mormon as a doorstoppper, lighting the Book of Mormon on fire and smoking a cigar over it, right? Like they’re not that level of brash. They’re being respectful but inaccurate even just historically. and sometimes they will not seem willing to do the homework um in order to represent beliefs correctly. And so I wanted to pick your brain on where accuracy fits into the equation because sometimes I just feel like this is kind of anti- Mormon because you’re not willing to check your sources and do the work to understand this. You’re just kind of

47:17 strawmaning things or or making a character out of beliefs. And it goes for both sides, right? both sides of the aisle are guilty of this. How do we approach that? So, when do you know you’ve crossed the threshold? And I think it’s when you’ve left ideas and you’ve attacked the people and the person. That’s what’s anti- Mormon. It’s not anti- Mormon for an evangelical to say, “I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet or I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is scripture.” Like, those are just basic statements of facts about evangelicalism. Sure.

47:48 um it is anti- Mormon to denigrate those texts and and the people. So if you’re trying to decide like where where can I sense I’ve slipped into anti- Mormonism, it’s when you’ve stopped engaging with the ideas or the history and you’ve started to just disparage the person. What you’re sensing though is if somebody is in kind of a pyic mode and they’re you’re discussing very clearly historical facts that you know aren’t true because objectively you’ve seen it and you’ve looked at it from every angle and you’re like I know it benefits me but is this true? Right?

48:27 And yet they still don’t want to take the time to try to understand your perspective. Um they’re not actually engaging with facts anymore are they? They’re disrespecting you. You see what I’m saying? So, so I think that’s why you feel like it’s slipping into anti-ormonism because it’s not only that I’m unwilling to fact check myself, it’s that I don’t trust you and I don’t respect you enough to do the homework. So, do we do that intentionally or unintentionally? I would say probably. It’s mostly unintentional, but it’s just a condition of our fallenness and our in our selfishness and our pride if we’re being honest with ourselves. I don’t want to do that. I I think if you’re going to do pymics, which I think is a legitimate mode, I think there’s a value to that.

49:12 But you have to have the dignity and the respect and some modicum of trust with your interlocutor. Or else, what are you doing? You’re just rehashing things over and over and over again, and you’re not moving the ball an inch. It’s more about ego winning. Winning. It’s competitive. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Something that we’ve talked about on our show before is how oftentimes it’s just more important to love other people than to be right.

49:41 Or or I’ll even have recently I had a prospective missionary uh approach me online with a question saying like how do I answer these questions? I need to know the answers so that I’m able to counter all of these points that are going to be thrown at me. And I said, ‘Look, if if your focus if your primary focus is on loving the other person, then it’s okay if you don’t know the answer and you can say, “I don’t know the answer to this question. I’ll go research it and I’ll get back to you.”

50:12 And then it’s okay and and you can develop a relationship that way. But when your primary motivation is to win, then if you don’t know an answer, you retrench yourself in your position even more and you say, “No, like this is the way it is. You’re wrong.” You know? Yeah. And there’s more of an unwillingness uh to reflect on your sources, to go back and and consider the other person’s position because you don’t care as much.

50:42 There’s the pastoral side of me here wants to riff a bit because there’s an old god that’s being worshiped here which is Nike your victory like what what are you are committing idolatry when you are willing to sacrifice everything to please victory interesting and I think that goes for both sides yeah absolutely like what god do you fear in this moment is it the king of kings lord of lords or is it victory I I take Peter’s ‘s very famous um Apaladia text like have a defense for the hope that’s within you. They do this in gentleness and respect.

51:20 People people look at gentleness and respect and they say okay you’re supposed to like control your emotions and with respect of the other person. I I don’t think that’s what Peter’s got here because the word for respect is phobos which is fear. And very often in especially in the New Testament and in the Greek the subtention of the Old Testament phobos or fear is related to God. M and so what I think he’s saying here is like hey you contend for your faith in gentleness kindness with the person and fear of God respect for God like am I doing what is pleasing to you in this moment and if you take away God who greatest manifestation and revelation to us is in Jesus Christ his character what he desires for us to do and you replace it with victory well victory likes conflict victory likes bloodshed.

52:10 Victory likes losers. Yeah. And that’s the that’s the avenue you go. And I see it on my side. I see it. And I’ve been uh attacked with it from y’all’s side. And I think both of us need to just knock it off. Yeah. Right. Like Yeah. and and not saying that, you know, we just need to be making casserles for each other and not syncretatism, not kumbaya, not forget our differences because I think that’s equally displeasing. Yeah. Yeah.

52:40 And I think that there’s another god uh called the algorithm that a lot of people I’m not as tempted by that one, but \[laughter\] I do think there is some temptation there in the creator space. It’s a because that’s what people feed off of is that bloodshed, right? That aggression, right? Um, and that’s what the algorithm feeds. I mean, I guess it’s it’s the it’s we the people who have taught the algorithm that that’s what we like. But what do you think is the most important section of the book?

53:10 Yeah, I I cheat a bit because I bring it up twice and it’s in the it’s in the first chapter and it’s in the last chapter. So, the first chapter is asking the very basic question. Why why should a Christian, a traditional Christian, an evangelical, whomever, why should they want to study and engage Latter- Day Saints to begin with? And I kind of list all of the typical reasons that you would think. Uh, and then I say, you know what, those are all well and good, but I think the primary motivator for any evangelical to approach a Latter-day Saint should be the desire to obey the greatest commandment.

53:46 And if I’m sure your viewers are well aware, the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. So he’s coming from the Shama, Deuteronomy 6:4. And then to love your neighbor as yourself. It’s not pick one. It’s you got to do both. For me, to love my neighbor as myself means I have to understand who my neighbor really is in order to love them. Are you really loving somebody if it’s a caricature you have in your head? And so what what that means is well we have to talk about what we agree on and we have to talk about what we disagree on because if we don’t do both of those well we don’t really know who that person is and we can’t love somebody we don’t know truly. One of the analogies I use is imagine this engagement as uh a couple getting to know each other with the intention of getting married and date after date the only thing they ever do is they talk about what they disagree on.

54:44 Mhm. At at what point do they just call it quits and walk away from each other? It’s probably going to be pretty early, right? Yeah. If you’re always constantly in the disagreement mode, here’s why you’re not Christian or here’s why we don’t have the the true and everlasting gospel, right? If you’re constantly only having those conversations, it’s going to fizzle out. But there’s a twin pitfall, which is only ever talking about our agreements. Imagine that couple sitting down and the only thing they ever talk about is you two. I love that.

55:13 Yeah. everything’s going to be great. And so they rush and they get married and then comes the first day they discover they actually prefer the toilet paper to be switched the opposite direction as their spouse. Right? There’s the first disagreement. Fatal, right? And so the reason is only disagreement prevented you from developing a relationship and only agreement like unintentionally you’ve created a relationship with a person that you don’t actually know.

55:39 It sugar coats it. It cheapens it a little bit. So to answer your question, the most important thing in the book is a call to the to the greatest commandment. I love that. I think that’s fantastic. Um I feel like oftent times, and this goes for both sides of the aisle, the motivation can be I want to get to know you so I know best how to destroy you. Right. Like you’re a project and I’m going to refashion you in my spiritual image. Yeah. Know your enemy. Yes. Right.

56:08 Yeah. Is there anything since this book has been published that looking back you wish you would have approached differently or tweaked a little bit? Yes. Nothing like, oh, I wish I wouldn’t have written that chapter, but there were points in the book where I wish I would have nuanced things a bit more. One in particular, I liken the Latter-day Saint uh rejection of original sin to Pelagianism.

56:39 Okay. And I wish I would have fleshed that out a bit more because I don’t think Latter-day Saints are genuinely palagian. I think they have their own kind of version of maybe what we call a Latter-day Saint semipolagianism. But the long and short of it here is Latter-day Saints take seriously the effect of the fall on human agency while also trying to maximize a respect for agency at the same time. I don’t there’s no Latter-day Saint that I’m aware of that believes if a if a human being was born, they would by their own valition and agency absent the church be able to be received into celestial glory.

57:16 And I’m I’m afraid that that’s what I implied. And so in future writing I’m going to course correct that. But I think that’s just one of those things of like I said earlier being evangelical trying to learn Latterday Saint ease is like becoming bilingual. And I think I I didn’t get that idiom right. I actually love that. Like it it it reminds me of the Book of Mormon a little bit at the in the introduction or title page or whatever of the Book of Mormon where it says if there are mistakes here they’re the mistakes of men. you know, uh, sorry, \[laughter\] sorry.

57:50 I don’t know what else to say. Yeah. No, but I think it takes a lot of humility to be like, you know what, I wish I would have worded that a little differently. Um, and maybe I don’t know if there’s going to be a second edition where you can Yeah, if there is, I’ve got a small list. And actually, one of the things I’m doing with this book is uh on my website, I have an anata. Okay.

58:08 And so, anything from like grammar or factual errors, I’m going to put those, but also like content things like I wish I would have said it like this. So, you’re going to read this line and if you’re like, if you bristle, give me a chance. Like, go to the website, look at the Ara cuz I might have bristled up myself and then I’ll I’m going to write out what I wish I would have said at that point. So, yeah. Well, and I do that, too. Like, even in just like these videos that we make sometimes, I’ll look back every once in a while and be like, could have said it differently.

58:36 I could have said it differently. I people aren’t taking it the way I intended it. So, yeah, it can and I want to be vulnerable here. the the moments where I think I said something different, it was when I was when I’ll be honest, it was pride. It was I want to impress either Latter-day Saints or evangelicals or I want the approval of Latter- Day Saints or evangelicals. And I forfeited my desire of like I want this to be like an act of worship that’s pleasing to God.

59:03 And that’s where I messed up most of the time. So, I have nobody else to blame but myself. Well, thank goodness for for Jesus and second editions. yet in second editions. Thank you so much for this. This was fantastic. Uh I feel great about it. Thanks for having me. I thought this conversation was great and I hope to this would model and facilitate and encourage more like it. To everyone else watching, I know what you’re thinking. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the quote unquote one true church. That’s something we say a lot in the church.

59:36 Um, if you want my thoughts on that and how that uh intertwines with our evangelical and Catholic and friends of other religions, I highly suggest you watch this video. I will see you there. Thanks for watching.