Examining The Book of Abraham Text | Ep. 1710 | LDS Discussions Ep. 32
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2024
- In Parts 1 and 2 of this series Mike, John, and @NemotheMormon explored the history and controversies over whether the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian as claimed by Joseph Smith. Now for Part 3 they are back to look at what the text of the Book of Abraham actually says, including many prime LDS doctrines. What have been the consequences of believing those doctrines? Does the Book of Abraham merit being considered “revelation” and therefore binding to believing Saints today?
LDS Discussion Essay on the Book of Abraham: www.ldsdiscussions.com/bookof...
LDS Discussions Playlist: • Joseph Smith and Treas...
00:00:00 Introduction
00:07:30 Looking at the text aside from the translation method
00:10:30 Biblical scholarship and the Book of Abraham
00:16:20 The global flood and the Book of Abraham
00:19:00 The Book of Abraham and the Documentary Hypothesis
00:33:34 Dr. David Bokovoy explains the Documentary Hypothesis problem
00:39:45 The first verse of the Book of Abraham contains an anachronism
00:45:00 Even FAIR Mormon admits this is a problem for the Book of Abraham
00:50:54 An 1834 patriarchal blessing ends up in the second verse
00:54:15 Use of Hebrew learned from Joshua Seixas
00:58:15 Why the use of Hebrew matters in the Book of Abraham
01:03:30 Joseph’s evolution on the Godhead in the Book of Abraham
01:09:00 The Urim and Thummim in the Book of Abraham
01:12:30 The curse of Ham in the Book of Abraham
01:19:15 Apologetic “hits” in the Book of Abraham: Human sacrifice
01:21:45 Dr. Robert Ritner addresses the idea of human sacrifice.
01:34:05 Another source for the idea of the sacrifice of Abraham
01:36:00 Richard Bushman concedes the Book of Abraham is pseudepigrapha.
01:49:00 Revisiting the problem with Book of Abraham apologetics.
01:52:00 Apologetic “Hits” for the Book of Abraham: Olishem
01:54:30 Even John Gee knows the Olishem connection is weak at best
02:00:30 Another big problem for Olishem: Potiphar’s hill
02:05:30 Apologetic “Hits” for the Book of Abraham: Elkenah
02:07:50 Joseph Smith: The worlds’ greatest guesser
02:19:00 Apologetic “Hits”: Joseph Smith knew nonbiblical Abraham stories
02:20:40 Sources that Joseph Smith had access to that influence the Book of Abraham
02:24:00 The games apologists play on the sacrifice of Abraham
02:27:40 Dr. David Bokovoy explains the problem with Joseph’s Cosmology
02:35:30 Another connection to Joseph Smith’s cosmology
02:37:30 Apologetic hits in the Book of Abraham: Shinehah
02:50:30 Conclusion
Episode Show Notes: www.mormonstories.org/podcast...
LDS Discussions - Book of Abraham Overview:
• The Book of Abraham Ov...
LDS Discussions - An Examination of Mormon Truth Claims:
• LDS Discussions - An E...
Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner on the Book of Abraham:
• Dr. Robert Ritner - An...
_________________________
LDS Discussions is made possible by generous donors!
Help us continue to deliver quality content by becoming a donor today:
One-time or recurring donations: donorbox.org/mormon-stories?d...
Patreon: / mormonstories
Amazon Smile: Be sure to select “Mormon Stories”
website: smile.amazon.com
app: amz.run/5r2M
LDS Discussions Platforms:
Website & Essays: www.ldsdiscussions.com
Anchor: anchor.fm/lds-discussions
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2UkFsqY...
UA-cam Playlist on Mormon Stories Podcast: • LDS Discussions - An E...
LDS Discussions on Social Media:
Twitter: ldsdiscussions
Facebook: ldsdiscussion
Insta: ldsdiscussions
Contact Mormon Stories:
MormonStories@gmail.com
PO Box 171085, Salt Lake City, UT 84117
Mormon Stories on Social Media:
Instagram: / mormstories
TikTok: / mormonstoriespodcast
Discord: / discord
#LDS Discussions #MormonStories #BookofAbraham
I love these discussions. I hope they get thousands and thousands of views.
Hey Dan. Was wondering if there was a precedence for the NY treasure diggers “finding treasure” but being unable to show the found treasures due to super natural means? Or was that an invention of JS?
@@chase.wilson JS didn't invent slippery treasures. The purpose of drawing a circle around the treasure was to keep the spirit from moving it.
@@chase.wilson
From what I read, Smith was an avid fan of pirate adventure stories, particularly Captain Kidd. One of the stories has Kidd burying treasure on the island of Comoros (Cumorah) with a body to supposedly guard the treasure as a spirit. Interestingly, the capital city of Comoros is called Moroni.
still going through your books
@@danvogel6802 Smith didn't really invent anything.... The founder of Mormonism reminds me of George Lucas. The Star Wars Trilogy looks and sounds original...but when a body watches a lot of adventures and westerns and samurai movies, he or she learns that Lucas borrowed many, many elements from other works of fiction in order to create his story. The United States Constitution is another example: At first blush, the Constitution sounds new and fresh...but the Framers of our Republic drew from a wealth of influences -- Greek and Roman influences, the Magna Carta, John Locke, Montesquieu, and others. Smith created Mormonism after blending a bunch o' different religious ideas together into something "new"....
Dan, thank you for your contributions to Mormon history!
You guys bring me 100 hours of info I would have to dig for myself in just a couple of hours. Amazing and indispensable.
"In some sense, the fact that it makes no sense makes perfect sense." That just sums up the whole church from start to finish.
You said it! How irksome to watch pics of JS morph from demonic to divine
BoA was a MAJOR shelf breaker for me, in fact it was the final straw. Robert Ritner did us a great service. Also, I love when Nemo makes an appearance! Thanks for getting these out.
I just remember during the Robert Ritner episodes when he was absolutely eviscerating the BoA papyrus LD$ debacle and John and RFM were in the background giggling. Classic stuff! Rest in Peace, Dr. Ritner...you TRULY did us all a tremendous service. Thank you Jen Le Bel for pointing this out. Peace, everyone.
I remember listening to the Ritner episodes early in my deconstruction and it was really crushing. I think it was my first full on, unavoidable understanding that JS was a fraud. Those episodes are gold, in terms of absolute proof that JS and everything that came after isn't what is claimed.
Mr Dehlin is one of the nicest people on UA-cam. That just makes his gentle criticism of LDS more devestating. I hope one day he takes on conventional Christianity.
I honestly believe now that if Joseph Smith didn't die, the church would have fallen apart because he could only keep this facade up for so long.
I’ve been binging the lds discussion episodes for the last couple weeks, and I can’t stop. I have to keep reminding myself that the TBM in my life aren’t ready to hear all of this until they are ready.
WOW..Dr Ritner...WHAT A PLEASANT SURPRISE! Ready to learn..
I absolutely LOVE this series! The longer episodes are fantastic because they allow everyone space to unpack the content. As always, excellent work, guys 👏🏾💜
I love these presentations! Mike and Nemo you’re the best! Great job John in facilitating the discussion (you must have been a consultant). Love the rebuttals to possible apologist defense arguments.
The Rosetta stone disproved Mormonism.
Really?? How so?
@@pfknob
Read a book.
@@pfknob regarding language, proves Joseph smith was a fraud at “translating”
@@kera9389 Doesn't "prove" Joseph Smith is a fraud. You simply have your opinion.
I appreciate Nemo’s contributions.
LDS Discussions Series: I mean, the intro immediately disproves it. We really don't have to dig any further.
Also LDS Discussions Series: Episode 3 on Book of Abraham premiers in 22 hours
😂💙
Yeah, why be a critical thinker? Why think for yourself? Let others tell what and how to think.
@@pfknob 😂 I'm a huge fan of MSP and LDS Discussions, not knocking this series at all
@@wichu Happy for you. I always enjoy a lively discussion, conversation and sharing of ideas and opinions. I always learn something.
I had Kerry Muhlestein as a new testament professor at BYU and I distinctly remember him telling us how he does his scholarship. At the time, even though I was having doubts, his approach made sense to me and brought me a superficial level of comfort. He is a very smart man and a fun teacher. But now that I better understand all the details he and the Church leave out, I can see his famous statement for what it is: a thought-stopping assurance that his bad scholarship is enough. Just goes to show that anyone, even someone as knowledgeable as Muhlestein, can be so taken up by the Church's truth claims that they inadvertently set aside their ethics to hold it up.
Thank you!!
You three have much stronger stomachs than mine. I can hardly stand listening to the apologists. The out and out pretzel logic they put out to defend an untruth astounds and aggravates.
Thank you Mike for the incredible work you put into these series and to Dr John and Nemo for adding to the conversation and pointing out more of the absurdities the apologist bring to the table.
Takes a lot of fortitude. Keep fighting the good fight! You guys are awesome.
“The second you pull that thread, you’re done.” Yep.
I absolutely love the work Mike is doing. He is so thorough and has done such a prodigious amount of research, synthesizing and organizing scholarship on so many topics, and I always learn something from him.
I'm going to be really obnoxious and nitpick just one point anyway. I'm not at all bothered by the differences between Olishem and Ulisum (Ulisim), nor am I bothered by the fact that the site hasn't been discovered. Ulisum appears as a western location (from the perspective of Mesopotamia) in an inscription of Naram-Sin, so from the late third millennium. If Ulisum is a West Semitic name, meaning it comes from a language closer to Hebrew (West Semitic) than to Akkadian (East Semitic), and it does have an underlying initial o vowel, an Akkadian speaker would likely hear that, and write it, as an u vowel. It's also perfectly easy to posit a mechanism that might cause an interchange between sh and s, especially over time, since the two major dialects of Akkadian in the second and first millennia, Assyrian and Babylonian, have sh and s reversed from each other (so every Assyrian s is Babylonian sh, and vice versa). (I do wonder, if the -um/-im is a Semitic case ending, as many scholars assume, how on earth that could have come into Hebrew in the first millennium as -em!? Assuming apologists think BoA is a first-millennium recension of an earlier text . . . ? But we don't know for sure that -um/-im on Ulisum is a Semitic case ending.)
Also, connecting ancient sites on the ground with ancient place names mentioned in texts is an ongoing problem, and there are plenty of sites that still haven't been identified and place names that we still can't put on the map. The classic example is Naram-Sin's own capital, Akkad, which gave its name to the Akkadian language. It still hasn't been identified on the ground, which is a famous mystery in the field, but that doesn't throw its ancient existence into question. We have loads of textual evidence for it.
The bigger problem for me is that the search for Olishem is doomed from the start, because the Book of Abraham is obviously completely made up and modern, for all of the reasons you've listed. There are always random coincidences across languages. In Akkadian itself, the word for "she" is basically the same as in English. (What are the odds!?) That doesn't mean it has any relationship to English whatsoever.
Excited to dive back into the BoA! What a great series.
This is one more good reason why the mormon church will eventually dwindle down to nothing in, perhaps, a couple of generations. What I wonder about is, at that time, who gets the $100 billion?!?!
Same! I'm thinking they might blow it all building a bunch of new temples in their last ditch effort to grow.
It will morph into a real estate company.
@@johnb5254 good call!
For me the smoking gun is saying that was translated and was written by Abraham himself. 1. It was not written by Abraham as the papyrus is dated much after Abraham lived (even if it was really a book of Abraham whatsoever); 2. By the facsimiles, the papirus and the journals of the Egyptian dictionary, etc confirm that JS didn't translate it, as all was wrong after having the Egyptian decoded. These two points are the smoking gun. All the rest is just commentaries and really doesn't matter.
Great presentation. Thanks
Your episodes have been important to me. I told the Elders I can't stand hypocrisy and repeated it many times during my 2 yrs exploring. The Elders couldn't answer my questions, so they brought in a life-long member. The answers were always shallow. I cut them off when they baptized someone I knew was a leach on society and told them she would suck their goodness dry and then leave. They tried to reconnect with me and unfortunately, I relented. They had told me that the guys on mission weren't allowed to view other resources. One of them accidentally texted me something that showed they were viewing online content contrary to their belief system. While they apologized, I could not handle the hypocrisy and cut them off for good. IMO those who recruit should fully understand the theology and be able to handle intelligent objections. Otherwise it is the blind leading the blind.
LDS Discussions are very informative. You 3 make a great team. Mike is amazing with the research he has done.
Regarding the notion that they can't abandon the BoA because then they'll lose everything: they dumped the Lectures on Faith from the standard works and a few generations later, most members don't even remember they were ever scripture. Mormons are great at forgetting.
What are the "Lectures on Faith"?
@@Decision_Justice A series of lessons given by Joseph Smith to the school of the prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35 and subsequently included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants--they were the "doctrine", and the revelations of Joseph Smith were the "covenants". They were removed from the D&C in 1921.
I love how John loves bringing up how Nemo is English. It’s hilarious haha
i have neglected my work because of this series. Just love it
I love that the idea of "interpreting a regular execution for a crime as a human sacrifice for religion" came up.
Cuz that's literally how Christians decided to interpret Jesus' execution for aggravating the Roman Empire. Calvary, a place of execution, becomes an altar upon which "Divine Blood" is spilled.
Thanks John, Love your show.
Question... why did the Book of Abraham take so much longer for JS to "translate" than the Book of Mormom? I have my opinion but want to hear from all of you experts here. Im new to all of this 😅
Excellent materials and analysis and stories. Between us all, the bofabr will be thoroughly examined.
Good work guys. I'd never considered the language foot print carry over from other sources in the BOA.
As usual very thorough.
I can't skip any of these. They are all important.
I would love to hear a discussion about the possibility for Lehi family to grow in the timeframe to 100 of thousands of people. Taking in the wars. Not to mention the issues of incest and dna
Mike and Nemo, thank you.
I bought recently a copy of the Egyptian book of the dead translated from a well preserved version held by the British Museum. Fascinating text that has nothing to do with Mormonism or Abraham but shows how much Joseph was making up pseudographic scripture stories
What’s it called?
@@kera9389 A transliteration of the ancient
Egyptian name of the text is "The Book of Coming Forth By Day." It's a funerary text intended to guide the deceased through the underworld.
Why not look up the Jewish "Midrash" on Abraham? The midrash is folktales that surround the stories in the Torah. They may or may not be true, and we treat them as fun "parables." Smith's "Book of Abraham" may have been plagiarized from the Midrash.
I wonder if anyone has considered that what Joseph may have been doing was a form of bibliomancy where you use a book and deep meditation to receive some kind of esoteric experience or revelation? Was the translation process just a further extension of the magic worldview? This is kind of like the catalyst theory.
He was a convicted conman. No magic necessary.
Nemo looks angelic with his setup 😁
I wonder if there was ever even a flood where all the land of Egypt was under water?
I need clarification are you saying the Book of Exodus was written in 1300 BCE and Hebrew came into existence 1000 BCE. According to modern scholarship the Book of Exodus came about between 600 and 400 BCE and the Pentateuch was formed when the Jews were in exile and their scriptures becoming more canonical towards the end of their exile. Excellent discussion.
The golden plates are the biggest scam in the Mormon church ever.. they never were, he looked into a hat and supposedly translated IT ALL THAT WAY. NO PLATES EVER.
At 2:26:34 and on Mike reads about a belief in Joseph Smith's era about "the progressive order of orbs and the intelligences that inhabited them." I didn't know anyone believed that in the 1800s. I always wondered why/how men were persuaded to believe that they could rule their own planet after they died. I suppose that book or that general (fringe?) belief is how Smith came up with that part of the doctrine. As Nemo muses, perhaps you can find it all in some other book.
working my way through these, loving it.
a good comparison that occurred to me for the first verse of the book of abraham using 'chaldea' as a place name is saying you found an epistle from paul to new jersey. it's kinda hilarious.
Nemo: “Seems legit. 😑🙄” 1:41:23
Me: 😂
I really enjoy listening to Nemo, but a couple of times in the video he said that the evidence demonstrated that Joseph really believed he was doing a standard translation of the BOA. Perhaps Nemo misspoke but I think it is beyond clear that Joseph only pretended to translate. There is no way he really believed he was translating.
How about him adding himself by name to the book of Genesis in the JST!?
FAIR's "probably" anachronistic scenario: Abraham writing "by his own hand" below the Church letterhead".
It's like the Wizard of Oz. Made up. Especially BOM.
Seems ole Jo was reading Cornelius Agrippa as well. The three teirs of heaven. Agrippa calls it terrestrial, celestial and super celestial. Was he practicing witchcraft as well?
Apologist can say that, considering Abraham was a prophet, God just revealed to him much earlier and he wrote it, which makes sense in a faith perspective.
Forgive my ignorance- trying to follow along in this video. Is it possible that the two genesis sources were written using the book of Abraham and then the BOA was lost, instead of writing the BOA from the genesis sources?
I image if your job is dependent upon defending the churches position that you will have a pretty good incentive to support a biased view point, which you were hired to do, in the first place. The fair Mormon group are not hired to follow evidences no matter where it leads, they are hired to defend a position and support a narrative. That will result in all kinds of down right dumb and slimy excuses. The willingness to be wrong is something most people are unwilling to do, but yet it is what leads one faster to discover truths.
Ritner demonstrate Gee committing blatant fraud.
Anything to add Nemo?
Even his tie is dishonest ...
I lost it
***Wow Joe knew so much about Egyptian, that he knew lots of words which even Dr Robert K. Ritner didn't know!!!***
Bushman said, "Joseph Smith was producing pseudepigrapha at the very time...." I think perhaps John and the others may have inferred incorrectly that Bushman is stating that Joseph was translating or channeling, as it were, ancient pseudepigraphic writings. I don't hear Bushman that way. Although the above statement was embedded in some historical and technical material that seems to camouflage the plain meaning, I think he was saying that Joseph produced it, i.e., wrote it, period. I don't think Bushman was trying to have it both ways. I admit I haven't listened to his whole talk, though.
I thought UFO cults were out and out crazy but then I learned about Mormonism.
had Ridner and Gee or another apologist ever debate?
Why has the Book of Abraham not been labelled as pseudepigrapha?
It has. By none less than Richard Bushman himself….I believe.
@@mormonstories Thank you
(Edit) 2:39:25 Joseph Smith and the Multiverse of Madness 😆
The proof that Mormonism is a pluralistic religion.
I really enjoy these videos. To those of us born without a religious gene it has been obvious since childhood that the Mormon truth claims are silly nonsense and the church is in large part a con. Let's see. Do what we tell you, give us 10% of your income, work for us for free and we'll let you into our Heaven (if you remember the secret password and handshake). Golly, gee, lucky me!
Mormonism is why most fundamentalist religions and cults limit members' access to knowledge
When Star Wars becomes a religion, The Force Awakens, will be J.J. Abrams "The Book of Abrams".
Ya know….
I believe Abraham is a historical man as evidenced in the old testament recording of lineage up through Jesus. Please research Is Genesis History for discussion on some scientific evidence. I am a Jesus follower (Christian) never a Mormon.
How interesting that the racism found in the Mormon scriptures was written and taught by Yankees.
The Book of Abraham was a manuscript kept by the Nephites. The Nephites were Ethiopian Jews. It was all discovered together in Ethiopia. Joseph Smith had all the documents from the beginning. The BOA is basically an apocryphal account of Abraham that was kept in Ethiopia.
The BOM, The BOA, The Book of Moses (w/ Enoch), The Sealed Portion, The Record John wrote which is in D&C 7, The record of the descendant of Pharaoh and Ham, and the suggested Book of Jacob. All these manuscripts were discovered together in Ethiopia (or Egypt) and brought to scholars to be translated into English. They never did publish them and the Smith family got them and published them, most likely through their relationship with Dartmouth and Prof. John Smith.
The thing the Smiths did that the scholars didn't was claim the Book of Mormon pertained to the Native American Indian. They substituted the Ethiopian Jew out, and put the Native American Indian in.
Shinehah shinola
Why the hat...
Ok why are we saying there was no flood? I was with you until that point
The Joseph Smith Papyri was a "catalyst" that prompted Joseph Smith to inquire/study and seek revelation regarding the writings of Abraham. The papyri were very common "Book of Dead"/"Book of Breathings" class of writings. How do you refute revelation?
Same way you refute a lie.
Nobody’s looking to refute anything. I believe everyone is simply looking for the church to admit as much. Joseph Smith believed that he was translating directly. So he couldn’t make an admission.
it wasn’t revelation. You have to believe in fairies and goblins to buy that. He never claimed it was a catalyst, that’s a lame theory put forth recently by apologists to find a way out of this impossible situation . Joseph Smith said he translated it from the papyri, and we even have his notes from his efforts to translate. Cowdry and Phelps stated that he translated it. As far back as 1912 we know that the so-called translation was completely off and nothing to do with Abraham since Abraham pre-dated the papri by 1000 years
@@chase.wilson Admit what exactly?
@@Lynnessanovember Via personal revelation from God?? Agreed.
It’s hilarious when you realize the Book of Abraham is a book of lies believed to be true bc of Smith’s reputation as a revelator and translator, and it’s propped up by men riding on their reputations as academics, and they’re all lying.
I see 3 problems with the intro to this discussion claiming that the BoA could not be true because Genesis was written long after Abraham died.
1. Scriptures were carried by Oral Tradition long before they were written down. Therefore, it could have been available long before Abraham's time and there is no way to disprove that as Oral Tradition leaves no evidence, so we can't say for sure when the Old Testament begins.
2. Some prophets have seen the history of the world from beginning to end through visions. If Abraham had such an experience, then he could have written about the contents of Genesis without actually reading it. We don't have all of Abraham's writings, so we can't prove or disprove this possibility, however it wouldn't be strange for Abraham to have such a vision considering how important he is to the development of the Old Testament and all that he went through to follow God.
3. Even if the text Joseph was translating didn't include King James mannerisms, Joseph was translating it for an audience that understood that type of writing, so it wouldn't be strange for that writing style to be there. It is common when localizing texts to change the meaning of words so that it is easier to understand for people with the language and culture you are localizing it for. Literal accuracy isn't the only consideration when translating documents
These 3 problems with the intro make its arguments very weak.
Smith said the Papyrus was written by Abraham himself, yet they dated the Papyrus to 1000 years later than the time Abraham actually lived in. The Papyrus is a well known Egyptian funeral rite of which many copies of the exact same funeral rite have been discovered. Nothing on the Papyrus refers or mentions Abraham in any way shape or form. The whole Book of Abraham is a Joseph Smith fabricated mess. Nice try saying many Prophets know the World from beginning to end & then saying that the findings in this upload are weak, smh.
Uhhhh.....no....the BoA does NOT rely on the King James Version. Joseph Smith, with the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, received revelation to write the Book of Abraham.
Plenty of proof for the former. None for the latter.
@@salvatorecollura2692 Prove it then.
It has been presented here and in many places. It all boils down to a world view based on emotional evidence, or one based in verifiable fact. So many ideas in LDS theology are beautiful, but when the foundation is rooted in false timelines and invented scripture, loving the structure of LDS doctrine to death doesn’t make it valid. It can be shown that the BoA, BoM, much of the church history etc, etc, is not what it claims to be. Just as a jeweller or a chemist could tell you without a doubt that a brass ring a charlatan tries to pass off for gold is not in fact made of precious metal, science and reason can point to the impossibility of events and narratives. The burden of proof on a church claiming to be God’s only sanctioned religion is too heavy to bear. It does not stand up to scrutiny. And it has even practiced deception when backed into a theological or PR corner at times. The church taught people they should love truth, even though it hasn’t lived up to that ideal. And that is why this passionate community and presentation exists.
@@salvatorecollura2692 "Presented here"... Seriously? That is like asking the fox to evaluate how well he guards the hen house. Burden of proof? Too heavy to bear? Wow, you do realize that you are simply fulfilling the prophecies foretold of a sifting within the church and members whose beliefs and testimonies are built on a foundation of sand? All truth comes from God and is manifest by the power of the Holy Ghost to the individual based on the principles of faith, repentance, obedience, and covenant keeping. Obtaining a testimony of the restoration of the church is born of the Holy Ghost to the individual and is not based on opinions, dissertations or podcasts. Ultimately, your testimony is between you and God.
@@pfknob Yes, that is a lovely statement of the emotional world view. Feelings and spiritual experiences defining the reality of doctrine. But when that reality is demonstrably false, facts have to carry more weight than emotion. The church has shifted its ground many times in its 200 year history, and has in the past called truths about its early history lies that it now admits are true. And it will continue to shift with changing sensibilities. So it is a tenuous things to let elevated emotion build a conviction of historical events that will be re-examined and redefined by the church with each generation.
These discussions are making me wish we had this much information for the new testament. How many pretty, young converts was Paul hooking up with in Corinth? Makes you wonder.
Before watching these I thought Christian apologists were desperate.
I can’t help but notice how you are so careful to tease every detail. It floods back to memory how nit picky of every detail Mormons are. I guess this is too new to all of you. You are picking up every lie and teasing it for any possible way you might be wrong. It reminds me of how difficult it is to carry on a conversation with a true believer when they know you have moved on. This is difficult for me to wade back through it all. 🫤🫣☹️🤮 I am glad you are here helping others to hash through this. My advice is believe the common sense you are born with. It is a mental muscle and the more you use it the stronger it gets, and the more confident in trusting yourself you become. Also watch your back because the true believers will come after you in so many ways. Good luck with this. ❤️ don’t be surprised when you take a hard look at the Bible you end up walking away from that too. It is so painful to understand how deep and far you are being lied to and misled. You keep finding yourself homeless of a safe place to keep believing anything religious. I think it might be harder for men to let it go. No matter the faith or at least the big 3 in this country Christian, Jew, or Muslin, justify men being in charge. Women have to bend over backwards to be seen as correct in God’s doctrine. Men have more to lose. Women gain freedom.