Get Don Bradley on your show. The man knows more about Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage than nearly anyone else alive. He can provide way more information, exact dates sequences of events and direct first and second hand accounts with complete erudition and command of the history. I think he'd be more than happy to come on the show. I could have sworn "Rough Stone Rolling" was published in the early nineties, nope, 2005. I graduated from high-school then, and I learned all of this "controversial" stuff from my seminary teachers years before it was published. My Dad was also a Church History and deep doctrine buff, so I might have picked up snippets here and there throughout my youth; but I am still amazed any of these things were shocking to anybody who grew up in the Church. Either way, Don Bradley is the man to talk to.
but that will ruin their anti-lds agenda which is pursued on many Catholic channels. I watch'listen to some Orthodox channels, but only the Catholic ones sound heck-bent on bashing the LDS church every way they can. So, it must be their agenda, so they won't invite anyone who can undermine it in any way
@@zzc8505 I think Matt stated that he would like to talk to a faithful member of the Church as well. As for the rest....I think they've jumped on the bandwagon for the same reason that the protestants did almost 200 years ago; mass conversion. We weren't a legitimate competitor with Catholicism for most of our history and so the Catholics didn't have any cause to be threatened by us or take us seriously. However, a lot of converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints these days are former Catholics. Mostly to do with our success in Latin America. The Orthodox Churches don't see us as a real competitor yet because don't have a great foothold in Eastern Europe and West Asia where they dominate. Generally we've had a very amicable relationship with both of those faiths. Pres. Nelson seems to consider Pope Francis a friend, and why shouldn't he? Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are far more sophisticated and to be honest, correct, than most protestant traditions. They know priestly ecclesiastical authority is both scriptural and historical. They have a sophisticated and nuanced conception of heaven and hell. They are not bound by all manner of post-hoc "solas". I am glad we are finally in a place where we're seen as a competitor, enough to go after us in a similar manner to the Evangelicals. It means we're making progress.
Yep, I always laugh when I see these interviews which are mid info pieces. But people believe this. BTW Rough Stone Rolling is not a faith affirming book, it is full of very poor quality research and mistake. What this guy is saying about the book is not true. Having Bradley on would be incredibly eye opening to you but you aren’t going to like it because it’s not going to support what you want to believe.
@@phadrus I think "Rough Stone Rolling" was about as good as you could do at the time, since then far more data has been put together, especially with the Joseph Smith Papers project now finally being completed. The only pushback of significance I've seen comes from Hannah Stoddard, who is basically a pseudo-historian. I've read Don Bradley's book, and consider it a masterpiece. He is working on another one about Oliver Cowdery's contribution to the translation of the Book of Mormon as well. As for whether something is "faith promoting" or not...I think that comes down to perspective. Only after establishing a revelatory relationship with God did I begin to have some understanding of the difficulties involved in obeying God's direction. As such, Church history is neither faith promoting, nor faith diminishing, it is instead informative and instructive.
I grew up in the Church in the 60's/70's/80's....served a Mission in early 80's..... AND I NEVER HEARD about the 1832 First Version of The First Vision. I heard NO DETAILS of Joseph's Polygamy. NEVER heard he married YOUNG GIRLS. NEVER heard about Kirtland bank fraud. WAS TOLD the Nauvoo Expositor was evil (and turns out to be almost totally true). Was told Joseph was wrongly arrested/ in Carthage Jail. Didn't hear that in Seminary....The MTC....Institute.
Im going to listen to the full thing, very interesting. I find it very very erie the similarities between Joseph smith and a certain islamic prophet....
Ironic that there’s a deep multi-tiered similarity between Islam and Mormonism, yet the Vatican doesn’t recognize the contradiction implicit in recognizing Islam as an “Abrahamic” religion
Some of the most disturbing things to me when studying about the LDS church was the less well known aspects of polygamy within the church leadership. Joseph married an estimated 30-40 women before his death. Including a mother-daughter pair Patty Bartlett Sessions (Age 47) and Sylvia Porter Sessions (Age 23) which is forbidden by scripture, “"If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you." Not to mention multiple sister pairs like Presendia Lathrop Huntington (Age 31) and Zina Diantha Huntington (Age 20) Eliza Maria Partridge (Age 22) and Emily Dow Partridge (Age 19) Sarah Lawrence (Age 17) and Maria Lawrence (Age 19) which is also forbidden by scripture, "And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive." The Book of Mormon which Joseph himself wrote 4 years before entering into polygamy even condemned the very act of polygamy throughout the book of Jacob. In the book, God describes the act of a man having more than one wife “wickedness”, “iniquity”, “whoredoms”, and “an abomination”… “And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulged themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son…for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For their shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women…And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the morning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yay, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Laminates, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them... ...and the sobbing of their hearts ascend up to God against you. Behold, the Laminates your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which has come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given onto our father- that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them!"
You do not know the difference between Polygamy, Plural marriage, and Aaronic Old testament law. Three different sets of laws. Therefore your entire post is erroneous.
@fotisvon9943 Catholics ignore a lot of their controversial history for the record, but no, we don't ignore what the Book of Mormon says about polygamy, it actually does say "30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30) The prohibition on polygamy in the Book of Mormon doesnt address the practice by Abraham and Jacob, it also would be inconsistent with the Bible if it didn't lump David and Solomon's actions together because Biblically, David's only sin was taking Bath Sheba and having her husband killed. It was Solomon's actions of taking many strange wives that was the absolute abomination, and it would appear that in order to be able to practice marriage let alone polygamy for the Nephites they would have to marry strange wives.
We have a book written an antique book written by one of wives of Brigham Young explaining her whole experience of the Mormons and how she explains it, she escape from that life, she states she forced into a marriage with him as a child. My husband's grandfather found it at flea market
Your story if false . Your book was written by an adult woman, not a child, and she was not forced. She had been married before and was divorced. Her father begged Brigham Young to marry his wild daughter. Young did not want to. He later caved in. She divorced Young too. Then went on tour writing Anti Mormon books making a living. Her book is filled with the wildest lies. No one honestly believes her claims GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
lol everything you need to know about Mormonism is on this one episode of South Park where they talked about the ridiculousness of Joseph Smith creating the religion lol.
Joe Smith was an opportunistic vulture trying to survive among desperate gold-rush era thieves, highway robbers, lost souls wondering westward with no real plan. There were tons of single men who were physically starving, without a dollar to their name. The conditions are perfect for a cult to form. "Howdy partner, come in my shed/church and I'll give ya some beans and lard, did I mention I talked to an angel in the woods?" And just like that, Joe Smith had a new follower.
Well, no. This is a gross simplification, and just your own assumption of how it happened. You have to do some serious research if you want to have an actually informed opinion, but a lot of people find it easier to just dismiss Smith as a lazy con. Look at the actual historical data, and you'll find that it is extremely hard to support that position.
No, man. You're simplifying it again. I said "historical data". Historical data, in a broad context, is data collected about past events and circumstances pertaining to a particular subject. So yeah, the actual historical events, not hearsay and simple strawmen. @@hansblitz7770
I read "Rough Stone Rolling" in HIST375 Joseph Smith in Mormon History at BYU and found it faith-promoting. Grant Underwood, a former director of the Joseph Smith Papers Project taught the course. I remember in one of the recent videos here, there was a scholar who said that the Israelites built the tabernacle in a manner similar to an Egyptian tent of the time, perhaps a military sort of tent. I see Moroni's appearance to Joseph in a similar way: God using the background and culture of a people to reveal his will.
That could make sense if those people existed. Or if Moroni existed. Or if the Mormon god existed. Praise be to the Most High! Reject all idols and turn our hearts to Him alone, who is revealed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are consubstantially one God in communion, who is unique, who pre-dates all of creation, and who created all things.
I’ve heard that too! How there are eerie similarities between the “angel” Gabriel who appeared to Muhammad and the “angel” Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith; their messages to both men, and therefore the similarities between Islam and Mormonism. I’ll have to check it out.
These pontifications on Joseph Smith are so weak. Can you imagine if we had more 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of Old Testament prophets and New Testament Apostles? They were imperfect people. Even the scriptures show some of their weaknesses. To me, understanding that God can still work with imperfect people is more of a testament and comfort to me that He can work with me.
onikill so with would you prefer it said as . . . someone doing it to your wife or with your wife ? ? (not meant as dis respective) - Matt also referred to the priest as homosexual - not so, they are pedophiles and homosexuals
As an active, believing latter-day saint who is also a student of its history, I actually really enjoy a lot of the content on this channel and feel a deep affinity for the catholic church. That being said, the episodes where they allow former members of the LDS church to air their grievances provide an interesting and important perspective, but also create a caricature of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that would not be shared by many who practice the religion. It would be interesting for the author to have a former catholic who became a latter day-saint (one who is well versed in both of their histories and doctrines) tell their story as well for a more balanced perspective.
how can you feel "affinity" and "enjoy" it? Have some self-respect. If I were LDS, I would not feel any "affinity" for sure. I find many similarities between certain Catholic and LDS beliefs, but tbh, I find LDS beliefs to have much more internal coherency than Catholics or Orthodox. It's much more systematic, but this channel and a few other popular Catholic channels do nothing but ridicule the LDS. They don't want a "balanced" perspective, they only mock and jeer whenever it comes to the LDS church. There is another Catholic channel - Thomistic Institute I think, where they deliver lectures for their youth and anyone who'll listen; quite a few interesting lectures they have; but just recently I listened to one of the lecturers who labeled the LDS church as demonic - so, it's not some random Catholic church member, it's an official position. So, there, how much "affinity" you'll feel there.
If you understand history have you understood what Ignatius of Antioch meant when he wrote that anyone who follows schism will not inherit eternal life? Surely you are not that avid.
@@fotisvon9943 another one who reads and doesn't even understand what he reads. "Schism" do you know how many "schisms" (or divisions, because that's what a "schism" means) have there been within the Catholic faith, let alone among Christians? ... Gawd, ignorance must be a bliss for some, indeed
@@zzc8505 Your opinion is very strange. The catholic faith is homogenous. You also must not have read Ignatius nor know who he is that i speak about. The schisms denote persons (who head groups) who create false doctrine and break away from the whole. The "whole" being the Catholic faith centered with the Pope. Ignatius states; "Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]." This is why you can admit that there have been many schisms from the truth yet you do not understand that the truth is the one that they separate from? If one truly were to understand mormon doctrine they would find that it makes no sense.
Yeah the Catholic Church has had a lot of sinners over 2000 years. But the teaching has remained consistent. The Pope never officially declared that God told him to be a polygamist and then proceeded to rape 14 year old girls and marry other men's' wives.
What do you mean “get around” it’s a demonstrably false story that’s clearly concocted in the early 1800s by taking from the kjv bible and myths common to that day.
The truth about Joseph Smoth will always come down to the Book of Mormon. By their fruits ye shall know them. Let’s look at the Book of Mormon and let’s see if it is in fact false. The 2 arguments that ironically go hand in hand is that Joseph smith is an idiot who Couldn’t have done this and when that is disproved they then say he is a creative genius.
The most obvious problem with the book of mrmon is the doctrine of the fall. Teaching that disobedience to God was essential to God's plan is a horrifying heresy. "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." In other words, "Adam had to disobey God so that men could be, and the purpose of man is to be joyful". This is a cancerous teaching.
Would you agree that before the fall there was no sickness? no death? no negative things of any sort? If that is the case, how would we know happiness. We can't know happiness if we do not know sorrow. Also Heavenly Father being all knowing as He is, knew that Adam would partake of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil right? Why is it that he created a plan so that when we would fall, we would be able to come back to him. Why would that be a cancerous teaching, to have the plan that when we would fall Jesus Christ would go through the pain and suffering of the Atonement so that we can repent and return to live with God and Christ? @@jeremyfirth
@@blakejensen1470 I also don't agree that "there must needs be opposition in all things". The Church Fathers teach that God's plan was for Adam and Eve to be able to fulfill the commandments to multiply and fill all the earth, and eventually would have gotten permission to eat the fruit. The fruit itself was not the problem. The problem was that they weren't prepared for having their eyes opened, but instead of trusting in God, they listened to the serpent and decided to try and become like gods themselves by eating the fruit. This caused their spiritual death first (banishment from the Garden), then later, their physical death. Along the way, Eve could have asked God what she should do, and later, when Eve told Adam she had partaken of the fruit, Adam could have asked God what to do, but instead, they refused to repent and were cast out. This was a great tragedy and was not necessary. The cancerous teaching is to teach that the fall was necessary, that disobedience was necessary for man to be and to "have joy". Disobedience is not God's plan and never was. That teaching is a deeply troubling heresy. Who would tell you that disobedience to God was essential? Who's message is that? God's?
@@jeremyfirth how can there not be opposition in all things? Also Adam and Eve Could not have fulfilled the other commandment of multiplying and replenishing the earth until they were out of their innocent state (partaken of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil). Also there is no evidence that God would have allowed them to partake of that fruit. Rather he prepared a plan so that IF and WHEN they were to fall all mankind would be able to have a savior and to be saved through the Blood of Christ. Also thanks for being respectful!
@@blakejensen1470 The Church Fathers teach us that Adam and Eve would have, in due time, been able to fulfill the commandment. Much like children cannot multiply and fill the earth, but later gain that ability, and hopefully the wisdom and guidance to do so properly, Adam and Eve were "young" so to speak and innocent, but would have eventually been able to fulfill that commandment while still in Paradise. God knew their fall beforehand, of course, but disobedience to His laws has never been, nor ever will be part of the plan. Again, ask yourself: who is it who would try to convince you that disobedience to God is God's plan and that this is the only way you can find joy? Christ is eternally the savior and his life and resurrection would have still taken us into a higher state, and we didn't need to fall first.
Read more early Christian history (read the Apostolic Fathers) and ask why your church, which claims to be the "restored ancient church" looks nothing like what you read.
These are all straw man overused tropes. He didn’t even explain how the book of morning was translated. No one can translate a book this fast in less than 80 days.. No one can explain the creation of the book. Sealing and marrying is quite a different story. Read the Joseph’s smith papers and you will notice that there was no sex involved with these sealed women. Joseph did not practice polygamy, unfortunately Brigham young did.
Fradd instead of having random ex-mormons on your channel why don't you talk to a real scholar like Don Bradley. You know, someone who's an actual historian who knows what they are talking about. 😮
@@jeremyfirth I understand what you are saying, but Don Bradley is a historian, not a theologian. Getting history right is something we should all be able to get behind whatever religion you believe in. The issue I'm having with this video is that it presents one narrative as factual when in reality the debate over many things in Rough Stone Rolling is still ongoing (including the treasure digging claims).
@@LindyLime It presents one person's experience with converting to Roman Catholicism. As an Orthodox Christian, I am disappointed that he ended up going to the Roman Catholic church after spending a long time going to Divine Liturgy, but I don't expect Matt, a Roman Catholic, to bring an Orthodox priest on his channel to convince everyone they should convert. It's not the purpose of Matt's channel. He is a Roman Catholic. If you want Mormon apologetics, they're all over the place on youtube.
@@jeremyfirth I'm not envisioning a doctrinal discussion, apologetics, or an attempt to convert anyone, but a discussion of history. I'm frustrated to see only one side of the debate presented as the uncontested truth, the side which Matt and ex-mormons would most like to believe. Matt had some shocking things to say about his feelings on our church in an earlier discussion. But yeah maybe that would be outside of what Matt sees as the scope of his channel. (Btw Eastern Orthodox Church buildings are so cool looking and I love your Easter traditions from what little I know of them. I love lots of things about the Roman Catholic church too I just want us all to be friends)
@@LindyLime I hear what you're saying. I know it's hard to face issues that other people have with your faith, and it's hard to feel like the whole picture isn't being portrayed. I just think it's a lot to ask of a Roman Catholic host to have some full-on discussion of Mormon history on a channel focused on a Roman Catholic worldview and Roman Catholic apologetics. It could be viewed as a huge distraction. I grew up LDS and became disaffected with the church after my mission. I languished in a long period of anger at feeling like I had been lied to, and grieved the loss of a worldview that had brought me so much hope before. To your last point, most Mormons aren't really aware of just how far away from traditional Christianity their beliefs are, and those differences cause a huge strain on the the claim of being "like other Christians". Traditional Christianity teaches that God the Father is outside time and space, above and outside all categories, and the Source of all things visible and invisible. He is not subject to any "eternal laws" (enforced by whom? is one of my questions to Mormons), and matter is not eternal. Matter was created by God. Mormons believe that God is subject to "eternal laws" and that matter is eternal. That's fundamentally a materialist view. They believe God became God because he progressed through obedience to "eternal laws" and eventually became perfect. Mormons believe we are "gods in embryo" where as traditional Christianity teaches we can become like God through His grace. Traditional Christianity teaches that God and man do not share a nature. God is Uncreated, and man is a creation. A creature. We can become like God through grace, because God took on our human nature in the person of Jesus Christ and healed and redeemed our nature, which will be completed at the Final Judgement. However, we will never bridge the gap between creation and uncreated. God will always be ultimately and outside and above our ability to comprehend Him. Mormons believe in a lowercase "g" god. He is not all-powerful. The Mormon god is subject to laws outside himself and subject to physical, eternal laws. This is anathema. Mormons also believe that we existed as spirits before we got a body, which is a heretical teaching first taught by Origen in the 2nd Century, and later condemned by an Ecumenical Council. Mormons don't use crosses and reject the Nicene Creed (also called the Symbol of Faith), then wonder why other Christians don't view them as Christian. You can't have it both ways. Either you are the only true church, or you need to realize there was never a Great Apostasy and that Christ's church that He established while living on earth has, indeed, withstood gates of hell.
Is it honest to be troubled over Smith's history but reconcile the 1800 years of Christian history with regards to imprisonment, torture, stoning, death, inquisition, rape, pedophilia, slavery, burning books, taking money for forgiveness of sins, conspiring with the gov't, killing the prophets, etc.. all in the name of Christ?? Wasn't it Constantine who saw an angel of light who told him to conquer by this sign ✝️.. so killing and torture is the foundation and founder of your new religion? If that's the alternative ...? I'm really confused..
Are you suggesting that Christianity and Mormonism are some sort of alternates? I agree that they are not the same thing. Mormonism was founded by a flawed man and Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ left us a church and that Church is his body. Jesus cannot die and neither can his body. That church still exists today as the Catholic Church. Equating the validity of a religion to the quality of its followers is unfair but when you compare who founded each then it is incomparable. There is no point for Mormonism to exist because the problem it is attempting to solve has been solved by the Catholic Church.
People keep bringing up Constantine like he is some revered person in Christianity. He’s a significant historical figure for sure, but the truth of Christianity doesn’t lie in him but in Christ. Christ is the central figure of the faith. He’s God incarnate, died and resurrected for our sins. That’s what matters. Not the mistakes of His followers. With Joseph smith, it’s different because he claims to be some kind of prophet
Also, Constantine didn’t see an angel of light, he only dreamed of Christs who told him he will be victorious if he would make the cross his standard. Raping, killing, imprisonment, etc. was not part of that dream but consequences of people repeatedly messing up and misinterpreting the Word in this fallen world
The difference is the truth of Christianity does not rely on the reliability of Constantine …. Mormonism rises and falls on the story of Joseph Smith. HUGE difference
The church is true! I look forward to you having a defender of the Latter-day Saint faith on your channel in the future. I was very disturbed by your comments about "burning" the Book of Mormon.
I don't know that I could ever say "most likely all false", as I think that is just as presumptuous as saying that one is true, but I like your point. @@SnowyDay4
@@SnowyDay4 I don't mean to sound annoying or rude, and I know a lot of religious people online do act that way. Still, while I know you are using hyperbole, the 99% comment makes me pause. 99% why? Why 99%? And if that is the case, then there is room for truth?
I've been researching three faiths: LDS, Catholic, and Orthodox. And I must say that not once have I encountered a convincing anti-LDS "testimony": it's either taking their beliefs out of context and ridiculing them like what Trent Horn does sometimes; or some ex-LDS people harping about some non-essential things like this guy. Seriously, what's the big deal? In my youth i, too, dabbled with ouija, tarot, and all sorts of things -- it's much more common for young people to explore this 'garbage' even these days, not to mention the context of those years. And those similarities with the finding of the BoM do not in and of themselves undermine the BoM story - an "argument" like that wouldn't stand in court, and that's important if one wants to start nit-picking and unraveling the LDS church (or any other church, for that matter). As for Matt's reference to the pedo scandal in the Catholic church -- I'd like to note that there are other serious objections to the Catholic church as the "true" church which can include but are not limited to Nazi connections, occult narratives, current alignment with what is commonly referred to as the globalist agenda etc. etc., not to mention the objections raised by sedevacantism. So, if you want to start relying on character-assassination-arguments, then you should be honest and go all the way. But what I also observed while investigating all three churches is that while the Catholic and Orthodox love to bash the LDS church in any possible way, mocking and accusing of being "demonic" and crud like that, not once have I encountered an LDS member or authority that would engage in bashing Catholics and Orthodox. And the lowest of the low is to leave one's church, whatever that may be, and then bash it. Pathetic.
Hi there. Thanks for the comment. If you have watched the entire interview, you will see that I offer other (more substantial) reasons why I concluded the LDS faith is not true. But it's also true that, even in the full interview, I only offer a cursory explanation of BoM anachronisms, rather than every single argument against it. (Though I do think that the case against the BoM and the BoA are strong enough to rule out Joseph Smith as a prophet. Especially for the BoA, I recommend Dan Vogel's book, "Book of Abraham Apologetics.") In the end my conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet is based on the following: that a close study of early Christianity reveals no great apostasy, and the promises of Christ even preclude it; that the BoM and BoA are clearly (to me, at least) 19th-century documents; that the "priesthood restoration" was almost certainly invented years after-the-fact; that Joseph Smith committed extremely sinful acts in the name of God (meaning he fails the "fruits" test of Matthew 7); and that LDS prophets after Smith repeatedly taught false doctrine, and changed doctrine. Of these things, the personal behavior of Joseph Smith is a small part of the puzzle. As for "leaving one's church, and then bash it," I don't think I spent any time "bashing" it during this interview at all. Candidly sharing disagreement and difference is not "bashing" anything, and sharing one's own personal story with the hope that it may help and bless someone else is an act of charity (or at least an attempt at charity - I don't claim perfection in any way). I'll pray for you, and ask that you will also pray for me. God bless.
@@Isaac_Hess Hey Isaac, as a former devout Catholic who converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I appreciate your sincere heart and seeing the good in the faith you grew up in. Although it saddens me that you left the restored Gospel, I respect your desire to follow Christ and am grateful you aren't spreading lies and hate about the church
Get Don Bradley on your show. The man knows more about Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage than nearly anyone else alive. He can provide way more information, exact dates sequences of events and direct first and second hand accounts with complete erudition and command of the history. I think he'd be more than happy to come on the show. I could have sworn "Rough Stone Rolling" was published in the early nineties, nope, 2005. I graduated from high-school then, and I learned all of this "controversial" stuff from my seminary teachers years before it was published. My Dad was also a Church History and deep doctrine buff, so I might have picked up snippets here and there throughout my youth; but I am still amazed any of these things were shocking to anybody who grew up in the Church. Either way, Don Bradley is the man to talk to.
but that will ruin their anti-lds agenda which is pursued on many Catholic channels. I watch'listen to some Orthodox channels, but only the Catholic ones sound heck-bent on bashing the LDS church every way they can. So, it must be their agenda, so they won't invite anyone who can undermine it in any way
@@zzc8505 I think Matt stated that he would like to talk to a faithful member of the Church as well. As for the rest....I think they've jumped on the bandwagon for the same reason that the protestants did almost 200 years ago; mass conversion. We weren't a legitimate competitor with Catholicism for most of our history and so the Catholics didn't have any cause to be threatened by us or take us seriously. However, a lot of converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints these days are former Catholics. Mostly to do with our success in Latin America.
The Orthodox Churches don't see us as a real competitor yet because don't have a great foothold in Eastern Europe and West Asia where they dominate. Generally we've had a very amicable relationship with both of those faiths. Pres. Nelson seems to consider Pope Francis a friend, and why shouldn't he?
Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are far more sophisticated and to be honest, correct, than most protestant traditions. They know priestly ecclesiastical authority is both scriptural and historical. They have a sophisticated and nuanced conception of heaven and hell. They are not bound by all manner of post-hoc "solas".
I am glad we are finally in a place where we're seen as a competitor, enough to go after us in a similar manner to the Evangelicals. It means we're making progress.
Yep, I always laugh when I see these interviews which are mid info pieces. But people believe this. BTW Rough Stone Rolling is not a faith affirming book, it is full of very poor quality research and mistake. What this guy is saying about the book is not true. Having Bradley on would be incredibly eye opening to you but you aren’t going to like it because it’s not going to support what you want to believe.
@@phadrus I think "Rough Stone Rolling" was about as good as you could do at the time, since then far more data has been put together, especially with the Joseph Smith Papers project now finally being completed. The only pushback of significance I've seen comes from Hannah Stoddard, who is basically a pseudo-historian. I've read Don Bradley's book, and consider it a masterpiece. He is working on another one about Oliver Cowdery's contribution to the translation of the Book of Mormon as well.
As for whether something is "faith promoting" or not...I think that comes down to perspective. Only after establishing a revelatory relationship with God did I begin to have some understanding of the difficulties involved in obeying God's direction. As such, Church history is neither faith promoting, nor faith diminishing, it is instead informative and instructive.
I grew up in the Church in the 60's/70's/80's....served a Mission in early 80's..... AND I NEVER HEARD about the 1832 First Version of The First Vision. I heard NO DETAILS of Joseph's Polygamy. NEVER heard he married YOUNG GIRLS. NEVER heard about Kirtland bank fraud. WAS TOLD the Nauvoo Expositor was evil (and turns out to be almost totally true). Was told Joseph was wrongly arrested/ in Carthage Jail. Didn't hear that in Seminary....The MTC....Institute.
Im going to listen to the full thing, very interesting. I find it very very erie the similarities between Joseph smith and a certain islamic prophet....
Same demon talking to them no doubt
Having been an LDS missionary, it is amazing how similar the arguments that the LDS and Muslims will use really are.
Glad to know I'm not the only one to realize this.
Because they both sided with Arius. Get your Christology wrong; your religion goes off the rails.
Ironic that there’s a deep multi-tiered similarity between Islam and Mormonism, yet the Vatican doesn’t recognize the contradiction implicit in recognizing Islam as an “Abrahamic” religion
Some of the most disturbing things to me when studying about the LDS church was the less well known aspects of polygamy within the church leadership. Joseph married an estimated 30-40 women before his death. Including a mother-daughter pair Patty Bartlett Sessions (Age 47) and Sylvia Porter Sessions (Age 23) which is forbidden by scripture, “"If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you." Not to mention multiple sister pairs like Presendia Lathrop Huntington (Age 31) and Zina Diantha Huntington (Age 20)
Eliza Maria Partridge (Age 22) and Emily Dow Partridge (Age 19) Sarah Lawrence (Age 17) and Maria Lawrence (Age 19) which is also forbidden by scripture, "And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive."
The Book of Mormon which Joseph himself wrote 4 years before entering into polygamy even condemned the very act of polygamy throughout the book of Jacob. In the book, God describes the act of a man having more than one wife “wickedness”, “iniquity”, “whoredoms”, and “an abomination”…
“And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulged themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son…for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For their shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women…And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the morning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yay, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Laminates, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them... ...and the sobbing of their hearts ascend up to God against you. Behold, the Laminates your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which has come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given onto our father- that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them!"
To a Mormon anything can be swept under the rug to maintain an appearance of truth. It makes me very sad to know people follow that mans creation.
You do not know the difference between Polygamy, Plural marriage, and Aaronic Old testament law. Three different sets of laws. Therefore your entire post is erroneous.
@fotisvon9943 Catholics ignore a lot of their controversial history for the record, but no, we don't ignore what the Book of Mormon says about polygamy, it actually does say "30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30)
The prohibition on polygamy in the Book of Mormon doesnt address the practice by Abraham and Jacob, it also would be inconsistent with the Bible if it didn't lump David and Solomon's actions together because Biblically, David's only sin was taking Bath Sheba and having her husband killed. It was Solomon's actions of taking many strange wives that was the absolute abomination, and it would appear that in order to be able to practice marriage let alone polygamy for the Nephites they would have to marry strange wives.
@@fotisvon9943 HAHAHA TELL US ABOUT CATHOLIC HISTORY.....i SHUTTER WHEN I THINK ABOUT IT. ..
@@MapleBoarder78 There's literally zero proof Joseph Smith had multiple wives.
We have a book written an antique book written by one of wives of Brigham Young explaining her whole experience of the Mormons and how she explains it, she escape from that life, she states she forced into a marriage with him as a child. My husband's grandfather found it at flea market
Do you have the book title?
@@seandoherty4236 Wife No. 19 by Ann Eliza Young
Was it the 19th wife?
I think so but I have to look
Your story if false . Your book was written by an adult woman, not a child, and she was not forced. She had been married before and was divorced. Her father begged Brigham Young to marry his wild daughter. Young did not want to. He later caved in. She divorced Young too. Then went on tour writing Anti Mormon books making a living. Her book is filled with the wildest lies. No one honestly believes her claims GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
Didn't like the Mormon church when I tried it, but this was absolutely a revelation to me. Thankyou for this.
lol everything you need to know about Mormonism is on this one episode of South Park where they talked about the ridiculousness of Joseph Smith creating the religion lol.
I had a chance to meet Richard Bushman, who wrote Rough Stone Calling. His scholarship on LDS history is unparalleled!
To be fair oh should now have someone like Don Bradley on your show to discuss this. He is the foremost expert (actual historian) on Joseph smith
@blakejensen1470 it wouldn't matter to all them. No point in arguing or discussing, may God help all of us
I wouldn't call him the "foremost expert". There are LDS historians more published and experienced than Bradley.
He relied on the Spaulding Manuscript although LDS has denied it. My family recorded Mrs. Spaulding's letter about the stolen MS.
Joe Smith was an opportunistic vulture trying to survive among desperate gold-rush era thieves, highway robbers, lost souls wondering westward with no real plan. There were tons of single men who were physically starving, without a dollar to their name.
The conditions are perfect for a cult to form.
"Howdy partner, come in my shed/church and I'll give ya some beans and lard, did I mention I talked to an angel in the woods?"
And just like that, Joe Smith had a new follower.
The point of origin in deforested upstate New York also had to contribute. That would have been monumentally depressing.
I don't know what that means.
Well, no. This is a gross simplification, and just your own assumption of how it happened.
You have to do some serious research if you want to have an actually informed opinion, but a lot of people find it easier to just dismiss Smith as a lazy con.
Look at the actual historical data, and you'll find that it is extremely hard to support that position.
"The data"
We are talking about a dude and what he did.
This is not a conversation about the scientific process.
No, man. You're simplifying it again. I said "historical data". Historical data, in a broad context, is data collected about past events and circumstances pertaining to a particular subject.
So yeah, the actual historical events, not hearsay and simple strawmen.
@@hansblitz7770
I read "Rough Stone Rolling" in HIST375 Joseph Smith in Mormon History at BYU and found it faith-promoting. Grant Underwood, a former director of the Joseph Smith Papers Project taught the course. I remember in one of the recent videos here, there was a scholar who said that the Israelites built the tabernacle in a manner similar to an Egyptian tent of the time, perhaps a military sort of tent. I see Moroni's appearance to Joseph in a similar way: God using the background and culture of a people to reveal his will.
That could make sense if those people existed. Or if Moroni existed. Or if the Mormon god existed.
Praise be to the Most High! Reject all idols and turn our hearts to Him alone, who is revealed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are consubstantially one God in communion, who is unique, who pre-dates all of creation, and who created all things.
a product of the religious fervor of the burned-over district
Love the Ascension app. Id stay the heck away from Hallow from now on. Liam bloody Neeson.
The con artist's legacy lives on in the minds of fools.
@TheLutheranSatire has an entertaining video about how Mormonism is a regifting of Islam.
I’ve heard that too!
How there are eerie similarities between the “angel” Gabriel who appeared to Muhammad and the “angel” Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith; their messages to both men, and therefore the similarities between Islam and Mormonism.
I’ll have to check it out.
I call it American islam
Lutheran Satire is awesome and I’m Catholic. Everyone is Patrick.
R Lyman Bush, and major general lewis crum bidamin, with a carpet for a beard is adorable.
✝️👑
Latter Day Saints know the Bible compilation better than the members of the other churches.
Absolutely not.
If you didnt take a cent regarding sharing this information...i would consider this information as valid....yet here we are...
No prophet is accepted in his own country
Joseph Smith Joseph Smith dum dum dum!
These pontifications on Joseph Smith are so weak. Can you imagine if we had more 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of Old Testament prophets and New Testament Apostles? They were imperfect people. Even the scriptures show some of their weaknesses. To me, understanding that God can still work with imperfect people is more of a testament and comfort to me that He can work with me.
Choose your words carefully Matt. It's not "priests doing evil things with boys", as you claimed. It's "priests doing evil thing to boys".
I think the message is the same
onikill so with would you prefer it said as . . . someone doing it to your wife or with your wife ? ? (not meant as dis respective) - Matt also referred to the priest as homosexual - not so, they are pedophiles and homosexuals
As an active, believing latter-day saint who is also a student of its history, I actually really enjoy a lot of the content on this channel and feel a deep affinity for the catholic church. That being said, the episodes where they allow former members of the LDS church to air their grievances provide an interesting and important perspective, but also create a caricature of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that would not be shared by many who practice the religion. It would be interesting for the author to have a former catholic who became a latter day-saint (one who is well versed in both of their histories and doctrines) tell their story as well for a more balanced perspective.
I agree!
how can you feel "affinity" and "enjoy" it? Have some self-respect. If I were LDS, I would not feel any "affinity" for sure. I find many similarities between certain Catholic and LDS beliefs, but tbh, I find LDS beliefs to have much more internal coherency than Catholics or Orthodox. It's much more systematic, but this channel and a few other popular Catholic channels do nothing but ridicule the LDS. They don't want a "balanced" perspective, they only mock and jeer whenever it comes to the LDS church. There is another Catholic channel - Thomistic Institute I think, where they deliver lectures for their youth and anyone who'll listen; quite a few interesting lectures they have; but just recently I listened to one of the lecturers who labeled the LDS church as demonic - so, it's not some random Catholic church member, it's an official position. So, there, how much "affinity" you'll feel there.
If you understand history have you understood what Ignatius of Antioch meant when he wrote that anyone who follows schism will not inherit eternal life? Surely you are not that avid.
@@fotisvon9943 another one who reads and doesn't even understand what he reads. "Schism" do you know how many "schisms" (or divisions, because that's what a "schism" means) have there been within the Catholic faith, let alone among Christians? ... Gawd, ignorance must be a bliss for some, indeed
@@zzc8505 Your opinion is very strange. The catholic faith is homogenous. You also must not have read Ignatius nor know who he is that i speak about. The schisms denote persons (who head groups) who create false doctrine and break away from the whole. The "whole" being the Catholic faith centered with the Pope. Ignatius states; "Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]." This is why you can admit that there have been many schisms from the truth yet you do not understand that the truth is the one that they separate from? If one truly were to understand mormon doctrine they would find that it makes no sense.
Wait until he finds out about the history of the catholic church
Yeah the Catholic Church has had a lot of sinners over 2000 years. But the teaching has remained consistent. The Pope never officially declared that God told him to be a polygamist and then proceeded to rape 14 year old girls and marry other men's' wives.
Fiat!
How do you get around the Book of Mormon?
It's pretty easy to reject a book filled with egregious heresies.
Such as?
@@jeremyfirth
What do you mean get around it? The Book of Mormon is itself a good reason for not believing Mormonism.
What do you mean “get around” it’s a demonstrably false story that’s clearly concocted in the early 1800s by taking from the kjv bible and myths common to that day.
Show us the tablets.
The truth about Joseph Smoth will always come down to the Book of Mormon. By their fruits ye shall know them. Let’s look at the Book of Mormon and let’s see if it is in fact false. The 2 arguments that ironically go hand in hand is that Joseph smith is an idiot who
Couldn’t have done this and when that is disproved they then say he is a creative genius.
The most obvious problem with the book of mrmon is the doctrine of the fall. Teaching that disobedience to God was essential to God's plan is a horrifying heresy. "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." In other words, "Adam had to disobey God so that men could be, and the purpose of man is to be joyful". This is a cancerous teaching.
Would you agree that before the fall there was no sickness? no death? no negative things of any sort? If that is the case, how would we know happiness. We can't know happiness if we do not know sorrow.
Also Heavenly Father being all knowing as He is, knew that Adam would partake of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil right? Why is it that he created a plan so that when we would fall, we would be able to come back to him. Why would that be a cancerous teaching, to have the plan that when we would fall Jesus Christ would go through the pain and suffering of the Atonement so that we can repent and return to live with God and Christ?
@@jeremyfirth
@@blakejensen1470 I also don't agree that "there must needs be opposition in all things". The Church Fathers teach that God's plan was for Adam and Eve to be able to fulfill the commandments to multiply and fill all the earth, and eventually would have gotten permission to eat the fruit. The fruit itself was not the problem. The problem was that they weren't prepared for having their eyes opened, but instead of trusting in God, they listened to the serpent and decided to try and become like gods themselves by eating the fruit. This caused their spiritual death first (banishment from the Garden), then later, their physical death. Along the way, Eve could have asked God what she should do, and later, when Eve told Adam she had partaken of the fruit, Adam could have asked God what to do, but instead, they refused to repent and were cast out. This was a great tragedy and was not necessary.
The cancerous teaching is to teach that the fall was necessary, that disobedience was necessary for man to be and to "have joy". Disobedience is not God's plan and never was. That teaching is a deeply troubling heresy. Who would tell you that disobedience to God was essential? Who's message is that? God's?
@@jeremyfirth how can there not be opposition in all things?
Also Adam and Eve Could not have fulfilled the other commandment of multiplying and replenishing the earth until they were out of their innocent state (partaken of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil). Also there is no evidence that God would have allowed them to partake of that fruit. Rather he prepared a plan so that IF and WHEN they were to fall all mankind would be able to have a savior and to be saved through the Blood of Christ.
Also thanks for being respectful!
@@blakejensen1470 The Church Fathers teach us that Adam and Eve would have, in due time, been able to fulfill the commandment. Much like children cannot multiply and fill the earth, but later gain that ability, and hopefully the wisdom and guidance to do so properly, Adam and Eve were "young" so to speak and innocent, but would have eventually been able to fulfill that commandment while still in Paradise. God knew their fall beforehand, of course, but disobedience to His laws has never been, nor ever will be part of the plan.
Again, ask yourself: who is it who would try to convince you that disobedience to God is God's plan and that this is the only way you can find joy?
Christ is eternally the savior and his life and resurrection would have still taken us into a higher state, and we didn't need to fall first.
This strengthened my faith in Mormonism...
Read more early Christian history (read the Apostolic Fathers) and ask why your church, which claims to be the "restored ancient church" looks nothing like what you read.
You sound like the muslims in youtube comments
Moses also had a very folk magic based up bringing but look what God did to him and made him one of the most important prophets ever
These are all straw man overused tropes.
He didn’t even explain how the book of morning was translated. No one can translate a book this fast in less than 80 days..
No one can explain the creation of the book.
Sealing and marrying is quite a different story. Read the Joseph’s smith papers and you will notice that there was no sex involved with these sealed women.
Joseph did not practice polygamy, unfortunately Brigham young did.
وريني الألواح
Fradd instead of having random ex-mormons on your channel why don't you talk to a real scholar like Don Bradley. You know, someone who's an actual historian who knows what they are talking about. 😮
Because the channel is about people who convert to Catholicism, not people who defend Mormonism.
@@jeremyfirth I understand what you are saying, but Don Bradley is a historian, not a theologian. Getting history right is something we should all be able to get behind whatever religion you believe in. The issue I'm having with this video is that it presents one narrative as factual when in reality the debate over many things in Rough Stone Rolling is still ongoing (including the treasure digging claims).
@@LindyLime It presents one person's experience with converting to Roman Catholicism. As an Orthodox Christian, I am disappointed that he ended up going to the Roman Catholic church after spending a long time going to Divine Liturgy, but I don't expect Matt, a Roman Catholic, to bring an Orthodox priest on his channel to convince everyone they should convert. It's not the purpose of Matt's channel. He is a Roman Catholic. If you want Mormon apologetics, they're all over the place on youtube.
@@jeremyfirth I'm not envisioning a doctrinal discussion, apologetics, or an attempt to convert anyone, but a discussion of history. I'm frustrated to see only one side of the debate presented as the uncontested truth, the side which Matt and ex-mormons would most like to believe. Matt had some shocking things to say about his feelings on our church in an earlier discussion.
But yeah maybe that would be outside of what Matt sees as the scope of his channel.
(Btw Eastern Orthodox Church buildings are so cool looking and I love your Easter traditions from what little I know of them. I love lots of things about the Roman Catholic church too I just want us all to be friends)
@@LindyLime I hear what you're saying. I know it's hard to face issues that other people have with your faith, and it's hard to feel like the whole picture isn't being portrayed. I just think it's a lot to ask of a Roman Catholic host to have some full-on discussion of Mormon history on a channel focused on a Roman Catholic worldview and Roman Catholic apologetics. It could be viewed as a huge distraction.
I grew up LDS and became disaffected with the church after my mission. I languished in a long period of anger at feeling like I had been lied to, and grieved the loss of a worldview that had brought me so much hope before.
To your last point, most Mormons aren't really aware of just how far away from traditional Christianity their beliefs are, and those differences cause a huge strain on the the claim of being "like other Christians".
Traditional Christianity teaches that God the Father is outside time and space, above and outside all categories, and the Source of all things visible and invisible. He is not subject to any "eternal laws" (enforced by whom? is one of my questions to Mormons), and matter is not eternal. Matter was created by God.
Mormons believe that God is subject to "eternal laws" and that matter is eternal. That's fundamentally a materialist view. They believe God became God because he progressed through obedience to "eternal laws" and eventually became perfect.
Mormons believe we are "gods in embryo" where as traditional Christianity teaches we can become like God through His grace.
Traditional Christianity teaches that God and man do not share a nature. God is Uncreated, and man is a creation. A creature. We can become like God through grace, because God took on our human nature in the person of Jesus Christ and healed and redeemed our nature, which will be completed at the Final Judgement. However, we will never bridge the gap between creation and uncreated. God will always be ultimately and outside and above our ability to comprehend Him.
Mormons believe in a lowercase "g" god. He is not all-powerful. The Mormon god is subject to laws outside himself and subject to physical, eternal laws. This is anathema.
Mormons also believe that we existed as spirits before we got a body, which is a heretical teaching first taught by Origen in the 2nd Century, and later condemned by an Ecumenical Council.
Mormons don't use crosses and reject the Nicene Creed (also called the Symbol of Faith), then wonder why other Christians don't view them as Christian. You can't have it both ways. Either you are the only true church, or you need to realize there was never a Great Apostasy and that Christ's church that He established while living on earth has, indeed, withstood gates of hell.
Is it honest to be troubled over Smith's history but reconcile the 1800 years of Christian history with regards to imprisonment, torture, stoning, death, inquisition, rape, pedophilia, slavery, burning books, taking money for forgiveness of sins, conspiring with the gov't, killing the prophets, etc.. all in the name of Christ??
Wasn't it Constantine who saw an angel of light who told him to conquer by this sign ✝️.. so killing and torture is the foundation and founder of your new religion?
If that's the alternative ...? I'm really confused..
Are you suggesting that Christianity and Mormonism are some sort of alternates? I agree that they are not the same thing. Mormonism was founded by a flawed man and Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ left us a church and that Church is his body. Jesus cannot die and neither can his body. That church still exists today as the Catholic Church. Equating the validity of a religion to the quality of its followers is unfair but when you compare who founded each then it is incomparable. There is no point for Mormonism to exist because the problem it is attempting to solve has been solved by the Catholic Church.
The entire justification for ANY Christian group is the false assumption that Jesus let His Church fail so Brother Bubba has to restore it.
People keep bringing up Constantine like he is some revered person in Christianity. He’s a significant historical figure for sure, but the truth of Christianity doesn’t lie in him but in Christ. Christ is the central figure of the faith. He’s God incarnate, died and resurrected for our sins. That’s what matters. Not the mistakes of His followers.
With Joseph smith, it’s different because he claims to be some kind of prophet
Also, Constantine didn’t see an angel of light, he only dreamed of Christs who told him he will be victorious if he would make the cross his standard. Raping, killing, imprisonment, etc. was not part of that dream but consequences of people repeatedly messing up and misinterpreting the Word in this fallen world
The difference is the truth of Christianity does not rely on the reliability of Constantine …. Mormonism rises and falls on the story of Joseph Smith. HUGE difference
The church is true!
I look forward to you having a defender of the Latter-day Saint faith on your channel in the future. I was very disturbed by your comments about "burning" the Book of Mormon.
Which Church?
Mine 😹
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! @@halleylujah247
I don't know that I could ever say "most likely all false", as I think that is just as presumptuous as saying that one is true, but I like your point. @@SnowyDay4
@@SnowyDay4 I don't mean to sound annoying or rude, and I know a lot of religious people online do act that way. Still, while I know you are using hyperbole, the 99% comment makes me pause. 99% why? Why 99%?
And if that is the case, then there is room for truth?
I see your logic, though I don't personally think human flaws means there is no divine influence.
I've been researching three faiths: LDS, Catholic, and Orthodox. And I must say that not once have I encountered a convincing anti-LDS "testimony": it's either taking their beliefs out of context and ridiculing them like what Trent Horn does sometimes; or some ex-LDS people harping about some non-essential things like this guy. Seriously, what's the big deal? In my youth i, too, dabbled with ouija, tarot, and all sorts of things -- it's much more common for young people to explore this 'garbage' even these days, not to mention the context of those years. And those similarities with the finding of the BoM do not in and of themselves undermine the BoM story - an "argument" like that wouldn't stand in court, and that's important if one wants to start nit-picking and unraveling the LDS church (or any other church, for that matter).
As for Matt's reference to the pedo scandal in the Catholic church -- I'd like to note that there are other serious objections to the Catholic church as the "true" church which can include but are not limited to Nazi connections, occult narratives, current alignment with what is commonly referred to as the globalist agenda etc. etc., not to mention the objections raised by sedevacantism. So, if you want to start relying on character-assassination-arguments, then you should be honest and go all the way.
But what I also observed while investigating all three churches is that while the Catholic and Orthodox love to bash the LDS church in any possible way, mocking and accusing of being "demonic" and crud like that, not once have I encountered an LDS member or authority that would engage in bashing Catholics and Orthodox.
And the lowest of the low is to leave one's church, whatever that may be, and then bash it. Pathetic.
Hi there. Thanks for the comment. If you have watched the entire interview, you will see that I offer other (more substantial) reasons why I concluded the LDS faith is not true. But it's also true that, even in the full interview, I only offer a cursory explanation of BoM anachronisms, rather than every single argument against it. (Though I do think that the case against the BoM and the BoA are strong enough to rule out Joseph Smith as a prophet. Especially for the BoA, I recommend Dan Vogel's book, "Book of Abraham Apologetics.")
In the end my conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet is based on the following: that a close study of early Christianity reveals no great apostasy, and the promises of Christ even preclude it; that the BoM and BoA are clearly (to me, at least) 19th-century documents; that the "priesthood restoration" was almost certainly invented years after-the-fact; that Joseph Smith committed extremely sinful acts in the name of God (meaning he fails the "fruits" test of Matthew 7); and that LDS prophets after Smith repeatedly taught false doctrine, and changed doctrine.
Of these things, the personal behavior of Joseph Smith is a small part of the puzzle.
As for "leaving one's church, and then bash it," I don't think I spent any time "bashing" it during this interview at all. Candidly sharing disagreement and difference is not "bashing" anything, and sharing one's own personal story with the hope that it may help and bless someone else is an act of charity (or at least an attempt at charity - I don't claim perfection in any way).
I'll pray for you, and ask that you will also pray for me. God bless.
@@Isaac_Hess Hey Isaac, as a former devout Catholic who converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I appreciate your sincere heart and seeing the good in the faith you grew up in. Although it saddens me that you left the restored Gospel, I respect your desire to follow Christ and am grateful you aren't spreading lies and hate about the church
So Catholics and Mormons are actually the same. Pope? Prophet? Same thing.
Moronic comment.
You got it all figured out man, incredible
That’s one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever read. SMH 🤦🏻♂️
Completely ignorant answer. You obviously don't know either religion. Please don't post knee jerk comments without at least showing some intelligence.
@@masterchief8179Mormonic comment 😉😂