Відео

Ok, wheres the full version of this?

In other words. Words don't actually mean what they say in scripture, Father and son don't really mean father and son.

Listening to this excerpt Hales seems to make sense but to me he is a Korihor. He has a smug attitude and puts himself on a pedestal. Korihor preached that there was no Christ. Hales preaches the Joseph Smith was a liar.

Protestant's trivialize "works" to a large degree.

Using clarity in words. Reminds me of the scripture: “Say nothing but Yea yea, Nay nay to this generation. 3rd Ne 12: 37 “But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil.” (Also Mat 5:37) I came to understand it to mean: “mean what you say and say what you mean”. Honesty in communication starts with clarity in words…which is why I often my husband “hear the words of my mouth!” 😊

Love your work. A other great scholarly book to read: “How Greek Philosophy Perverted The Christian Concept of God “. LDS author but quoting many non LDS sources. Ps) I thoroughly enjoyed “The Key to the Keystone” I already bought 5, I need 8 more to gift. They seem to be out of stock. Are you gonna have more printed?

As someone who studied Judaism, this video is utterly false. Women in ancient Isreal were treated with respect and had many rights. Yeshua didn’t teach anything radical with his treatment of women.

The dismissiveness of racial issues is next level insanity Jacob.

The Mormon is brainwashed

I've really enjoyed these three videos and I am grateful for the strength of Jacob's faith. One problem I have with this is that he seems to think that the path that he took to have a sure foundation of faith is the path that we all must take. We must do this, then we have to that, then we have to read these great thinkers, etc. Many of us have gone through the wrestle in an entirely different manner and come to a sure foundation of faith. In any case, cheers brother and keep up the good work!

I knew a sister such as this in the past. On the surface, she made so much sense, about how Joseph and the Saints were in the beginning, but soon enough she was talking about secret meetings of the First Presidency below the temple, how the Brethren don’t know the whole truth. I walked in her home and General Conference was on and she could not stop rolling her eyes. Many followed her and many left the Church because of her influence. It was so subtle the deception, that she really had no clue that she herself was apostasising from the true Church.

Debating whether your invisible friend is real is the ultimate schadenfreude.

Your infallible source is someone, anyone, showing up and saying they are god? Unless there are some miracles going on that are scrutinized and recorded and so on, you can't just take someone's word. Or was David Koresh really Jesus?

The best defense is a great offense.

The mountains are a similitude of the temple

Faith and reason cannot be reconciled. They are separate modes of thought. Logic and inspiration are irreconcilable. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Wonderfully done 🔥 🙏

Where can I find this talk? I don’t see a reference to it anywhere. Thank you.

Michelle is just another Mormon podcaster heading towards excommunication, or membership loss, as it is now called. They follow the same pattern: John Dehlin started, Bill Reel, Nemo, etc., and it will soon be Michelle Stone. It's unfortunate because she seems to be a decent person otherwise.

Since removing the garments I was told to always wear, I have actually received greater spiritual stability. Temptations of all kinds have reduced magnificiently, and I no longer idolize man-made cloth as heavenly protection. I rely solely upon God's covering of his spirit and salvation of which the garments are a symbol of, not the actual and real thing. I remember my covenants in heart rather than needing reminders by the symbols on the cloth. I am clothed in greater purity since removing the garments, and the stumblingblock that the physical cloth has become for many was taken away from me. I still have my garments, but the outward and lesser thing is a dead work that never brought me life. I'd rather live the real thing and the inward blessings of heaven than be stuck and stumble on the outward and pretend things.

Those who, after digesting the content of the video choose to believe in a god do so because of belief in the logic not because of actual belief in god. Most adherents of this channel might miss that LDS church was not mentioned in the wager. If one addresses the probability of the historical formation of the church through angels, peep stones and gold plates as being valid and truthful, Pascals wager becomes irrelevant. Living a life with purpose direction and social intercourse provides the reason for better life outcomes and reporting thereof. This can be supplied by means other than any particular religion.

Ok I won't say Christ wasn't praying to Himself. I will say He wasn't being a ventriliquist when The Father spoke from heaven and said. ^Behold, my beloved son , in whom I am well pleased^. Please stop the madness. Why is there fear that monotheism is incorrect. Polytheism is the truth. There are many Gods, but to us there is one God, and one Lord, even Jesus Christ. Did I get what the Bible says pretty close. Fear not Polytheism is the truth. However, Christ is not the Father of our spirit, so if you want to define God as our literal Father it is not Christ, it is only The Father of all of us. To us there is only one God. But if you want to consider Christ our God, because He is our Savior and Redeemer, and the Father is not our Savior and Redeemer. Christ created heaven and earth. Does that make Him the only God? No, because the Bible, and D& C says He was only able to do so by the power and authorty The Father gave Him. I absolutely love the King Follit sermon. It is absolutely true, and a sign that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God. The Gods many are Fathers to other spirit children , who go through mortality on other worlds, they are Fathers to them, Gods to them, but not to us. The Holy Ghost is how God's influence and presence are everywhere at all times, He being a Spirit only, but He is neither the Father of our Spirit, nor the Savior and redeamer. They three are one God in purpose. They three are perfect individually. Can we become gods. Absolutely yes.God does not want us to become 70 percent like Him, and 30 percent like Satan. He wants us to become 100 percent like Him, which is a righteous parent of spirit children that will go through their mortal test on worlds without number worlds without end. The prophet Joseph Smith spoke well when he explained how impossible it is to teach the secrets of God to the saints. They cant handle anything new, even though it is the truth.

Or just don't bother with religions or deities. Less stress in life.

Excelente!!!!

I only watch for the humor of your idiocy.

Polytheism is okay.

This argument was never persuasive to me at all when I was atheist. I believe it comes from a place of doubt. There are blessings that we will not see in this life and we have to take it upon faith that the Lord will bless us with those things. There is a good reason why unbelievers live a different way than believers do. There are going to be certain things that seem burdensome when not looked at with an eternal perspective. It's impossible to look at things with an eternal perspective coming from a place of doubt, and therefore, the unbeliever will always choose a different path if they are being honest with themselves, especially if that honesty is based on their own understanding, and isn't based in eternal truth.

A whole army of missionaries, and quorums of seventies being evangelists and apostles testifying publicly as especial witnesses… I consider all of that “on the offense” in the way that God has designed His offensive play in the last days. Our invitations, and our “come and see” culture is proactive and preemptive and meant to engage on the forward end. Our offense is missionary work.

Really enjoy your content, been listening/watching for a long while and will continue to do so. Having watched your video twice now and taking some time to mull it over...I can't help but feel like this utilitarian reasoning would fail to convince many truthseekers who are seriously engaged with the topic at hand. You could perhaps convince some spiritually-passive pragmatists or self-interested nihilists that the people who act as though they believe in God seem to have better health benefits and reported contentment (though you might get some pushback regarding whether correlation = causation here), but the question of faith is moreso focused on the eternal than the temporal. Indeed, our general authorities have equated this life to "the blink of an eye" in relation to eternity - meaning that even if my meager mortal life is terrible but I endured to the end, an eternity of paradise will favor me far beyond my infinitesimal tribulations. Inversely, if I lived and died a happy and healthy man only to be told "Depart from me, ye knew me not" from the "true" Trinitarian Jesus, I doubt my lifetime of aggregated temporal advantages would provide soothing succor against eternal torment. Since we cannot investigate or demonstrate the eternal outcomes (positive, negative, or neutral) for placing one's faith in God, and temporal benefits are no guarantor of spiritual salvation/success, the "better outcomes" model appears incomplete to the nonresistant nonbeliever since it fails to justify the most impactful portion of the valuation formula. Like the burning building analogy you presented, engaged skeptics aren't looking at the dichotomous choice between "remain and burn with 99.9% certainty" or "run out the door for a 5% chance of survival" - they're in a room that they're being told is burning and they see a hundred different doors labeled "Exit", with no windows or other insights as to which doors are truly exits or not. To make matters worse, each Exit is attended by a fireman or two, urging you to leave through their door because the other Exits lead to dead ends, collapsing hallways, and/or deeper into the inferno. When facing the Hundred Exits dilemma, with various proposed exaltations and damnations awaiting behind each door, we need a rich, reliable methodology for sifting through the supernatural spaghetti to parse out which eternal damnation threats to truly fear and which promises of paradise to pursue. Selecting a doorway before conducting a duly rigorous investigation into the various faiths can prove eternally grave, depending on which one ends up right by the end (if any). As such, I'm afraid we have an insufficient case that "better outcomes" flatly result from ascribing faith to God when you account for the full spread of competing faith models and their eternal endpoints. Still, love your stuff and love to hear your thoughts. If you think I've misinterpreted something or made a mistake here, I'm certainly open to hearing it. Take care, friend!

Gordon B. Hinkley was very correct. Either the first vision was true or it was not. If the first vision is (was) a fraud, then it necessarily follows, that the entire church built on that claim it itself a fraud. Historically the first vision is questionable. There are different many versions. But Joseph Fielding Smith actually excised and "hid away" the original version in Joseph Smith's own handwritten journal for thirty years precisely because he was afraid of the truth coming to light. What does that fact say concerning the integrity and honest of the Church?. The real problem for so-called "Mormon Apologetics" is that the Church is running away from its own history In fact, the General Authorities actively obfuscated, dissembled, deceived and lied about the actual facts of church history for most of the twentieth century until they could not continue to further conceal and deceive in world of information access on the internet. As far as I can tell, the new Mormon apologetics is an evident attempt to rationalize and somehow escape the the stinking morass of actual, factual Mormon history -- polygamy, racism, seer stones and allied deceit. In this connection. the General Authorities essentially paid blackmail to Mark Hoffman in order to hide away embarrassing (albeit ultimately forged) historical documents that they found embarrassing. The who endeavor essentially screams "guilty knowledge." Otherwise, why would you pay? What was the motivation? I think that it was obviously to hide the truth. Then you have mass excommunications of honest and insightful believers whose primary "sin" consisted in finding and telling the truth. So why is Christ's church afraid of the truth? In my understanding, deception, secrecy and dissembling are the tactics of Satan, not of Christ or Christ's apostles. To say with Boyd K. Packer that "facts may be true, but not helpful," admits prima facie that he prefers fiction to fact. The real problem with so-called "Mormon apologetics" is that is primarily an institutional vehicle for systematic disinformation, distraction, and and deceit calculated to flee from the actual factual truth of Mormon history into a fuzzy but friendly fantasy. The actual historical facts of Mormonism are shocking, undeniable and, frankly. repugnant. But there they are -- inconvenient facts. Hinckley's approach was to just conveniently ignore them. That was a wise move. (He was a very wise man). It is much easier to ignore them than to defend them. Hinkley craftily wanted to change focus by saying "that's in the past! We have moved on." That may be the best that you can do when you have absolutely nothing to work with. All of my life the general authorities lied to me about the historical facts of Mormon over and over again. They actively excommunicated many people merely for telling the truth. Now, Elder Bednar confidently pats his own chest and avers that he Brethren are somehow the epitome of integrity! In reality, however, actions speak louder than words. People do feel deceived when you set about to lie to them. The fact that the General Authorities chose the dark world of deception, over the light of truth and and candor.

Oh, look at you, brave defenders of pseudoscience, standing here trying to play the "everyone's equally bad" card! How adorable. You're arguing that the church and its apologists are just as guilty of shoddy research, so they have no right to criticize Dehlin? Bravo! You've truly outdone yourselves in the mental gymnastics Olympics. Let's break this down for those in the back, shall we? 1. Newsflash: Pointing fingers doesn't magically transform Dehlin's "research" from garbage into gold. It's still a steaming pile of invalidity, no matter how much you whine about the other side. 2. Congratulations! You've been blindly swallowing a completely warped study for years, using it as ammunition against the church. How does it feel to realize you've been firing blanks all this time? Oops! 3. Oh, the irony! You pride yourselves on being such critical thinkers when it comes to the church, but when it's your beloved Dehlin? Suddenly, those critical thinking skills vanish faster than your credibility. 4. Here's a plot twist for you: It took a church member to come along and school you on proper research methods. Feeling a bit red-faced yet? 5. If you had even a smidgen of integrity (I know, I know, big ask), you'd be up in arms, demanding Dehlin retract his one-sided drivel. But no, that would require actual principles, wouldn't it? 6. And let's not forget the cherry on top: Instead of admitting you've been duped, you're scrambling to defend Dehlin with a smoke screen of irrelevant arguments. Bravo! Your mental contortions are truly a sight to behold. In conclusion, congratulations! You've successfully graduated from the School of Hypocrisy with flying colors. Your ability to stand for absolutely nothing while pretending to stand for something is truly remarkable. Keep up the stellar work, you spineless wonders!

Telling people they have their own choices or shouldn’t wear them if they don’t want to is not the same as encouraging people not to wear them.

I've been visiting the church for about 3 years and just decided this week to move forward with baptism. I hesitated because there is a difference from serving the church and serving God. Once I fully submit to Our Heavenly Father, I can submit to the church. EVERYWHERE we go, we will find offense because the world is made up of sinful people. We serve God and address the flaws of the church. But we better not hide sin in the church - we must root it out. I couldn't watch the whole interview so please forgive me. Leaders must discern and address these issues.

....Holy shit

Sadly, the change in behavior needs to come from John. Though his own perception of himself is that he’s “fixing” the church, his results are quite the opposite. He reminds me of Korihor or Alma the younger in his youth. The only thing that remains to be seen is if he repents and returns as Alma the younger did, or if he finishes his life as Korihor did. May it be the former, not the latter.

Amen and Amen!! 🙏 ❤🙏

My doubts came when the LDS church posted the Gospel Topic Essays. They basically admitted to much of what the church had been criticized for. Yeah, they put a spin on it, but at the end of the day, much of the imagery that the LDS church has used, simply isn't true, and they instead blamed US for believing their teaching, when somehow we should have known about the seer stones, and Book of Abraham fraud, and the Joseph polyandry and pedo wives.

I wouldn't trust these people to guide me through a deserted crosswalk.

THERE IS NO ANCIENT TEXT for the bom. The bom has no historical basis in reality.

I'd believe L. Ron Hubbard is a prophet long before I'd believe Joseph Smith, and that's saying a lot.

You literally didn't explain what makes his "opinions" predictable and you provided no evidence that he's not a scholar. And for once I'm heartened that the rest of the comments are also going against the low-thought right-winger. You usually only see pure, concentrated idiocy in the comments.that falls for any conservative talking point that is made to merely sound smart.

Watch his eyes. Normal thought may result in looking up and to the left or up and to the right. Liars look both ways searching for answers because they do not have one. His worse cases appear on "Court TV," where he regularly appears as an expert on "Mormonism." Yes he has a PHD in psych but most PHDs in psych go into that field to understand why they are messed up or different. I was trained in "Behavioral Interviewing," for a Fortune 50 company. You can read a liar.

Jacob doesn't have any understanding of Buddhism or Therapy.

Cope. What is God?

If you believe Jesus is God, then you believe he was once a man like us. The Bible clearly teaches Jesus was a man who walked on the earth.

Jeff needs to understand that Gods are eternal they have no beginning and no end. Isaiah 43:10 actually teaches this. No god was formed before or after me. Clearly, the Bible mentions elohim or gods the explanation for Isaiah 43:10 is that the elohim are eternal they are not formed or created, they have no beginning and no end.

“Celestial” is just an anglicized Greek word that means “heavenly”. “Terrestrial” is an anglicized Greek word that means “earthly”. “Terrestrial” has no meaning and no etymological history and was invented to fit with the other two words previously mentioned. The passage drawn from to support the LDS interpretation (1 Corinthians 15) is not referring to “kingdoms of glory” but resurrection bodies types. One is heavenly, immortal and spiritual. The other is earthly, mortal, and made of dust - a “natural body”. Yes, there is a celestial/heavenly kingdom, which the scriptures teach will be established on earth in the millennium or messianic age. If you want to see a terrestrial kingdom just look around- there are many earthly kingdoms in power right now, which will come to an end with this present and evil age. There is only one hope for the believer, and that is the resurrection from death to everlasting life in the heavenly kingdom established on earth. Now Jesus did say there were those who would be least in the kingdom and others, great. But they are not in different kingdoms, but the same.

Pascal's wager can be a good start on the path to God, but if that path doesn't include trusting God's word as the foundation of belief, then it leads to people following themselves, not God, in the long run. If your foundation is your spiritual experiences, like prayer, that assumes your spiritual discernment was reliable in the first place. If your foundation is living prophets, that again assumes your spiritual discernment was reliable when knew who the living prophets are. The only foundation that focuses on faith in God is trusting that God's word is reliable. Any other foundation boils down to faith in your discernment, spirituality, morality, and/or your understanding of logic and philosophy. You either put your faith in God's word or in yourself. If you meet God on judgment day and he asks you why you trusted yourself more than his scripture, what would you say?

I use to be a believer in mormonism for 37 years, and I am not here to discuss the reasons why I am not, but I really appreciated what you said here, Jacob. Thank you! This episode shows how easy it is to spin one side of the arguement, when the other isn't there to challenge and ballance your comments, with a different perspective. It is just too easy to dehumanize and demonize others when we aren't face to face with them. Thanks again for this episode!

Really Hansen is this your cope? :25 Actually Trent brought up a lot of points about the BOM. From the writing to the historicity. It's you who straw manned throughout the debate and avoided points.