I read the Book of Mormon about 2 years before I was baptized and was impressed with the doctrine displayed. I was reading it a second time about a year after I was baptized and one Saturday morning at UNC friend came by and showed me a copy of a letter that Joseph wrote to Emma. I could not read the letter. It did not even look like English. I looked at the letter then picked up my Book of Mormon and pondered how a boy who not write a letter could write a book so complex as the Book of Mormon. Then I thought wait he translated it, he didn’t write it. At that moment I knew Joseph was a prophet and the Book of Mormon was revealed scripture. My intellectual testimony was transmuted to a spiritual testimony as the spirit spoke strongly to me. That was 53 years ago and life has been very good because of my association with the saints.
Compare that letter with the First Edition Book of Mormon. Not the modern edition which has been grammatically enhanced no less than 10 editions by subsequent proof readers. Take into consideration as well that Joseph’s oral recitations were transcribed by educated men who often altered the words as originally offered by Joseph. You can see the changes on the original drafts
@@MeatGoblin88 long time ago but it was just a copy of a letter. I do not know how my friend came to be in possession of it. It took several minutes to see Emma’s name and Joseph’s name at the signature space. The body of the letter needed a better scholarship than mine to figure out the context.
My wife and I are getting sealed the 22nd of July. I have been wrestling with my doubts. This lifted those from me. Thank the Lord I found this. And thank you both for the video.
Book of Mormon has nothing to do with The Temple content developed by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young came up with. The Problem is the timing of Joseph being exposed to Masonry and within weeks "getting revelation" about the temple content. Problem...same handshakes....passwords...goofy clothing... A direct lift from Masonry into Mormonism. Joseph apparently thought Masonry went back to ancient times. The Church NOW says it recognizes Masonry only goes back to medieval times.
@@nathanbigler Mormons LOVE Dan's scholarship. Saves them time, plus they like the information given to them that is "faith-affirming". Listening to Dan use weasel words gives me a burning in my bosom.
@@mormonismwiththemurph You can spend literally YEARS being caught up in digging a rabbit hole on any simple principle of the Gospel and take something thats simple and make it much more complex than what it should be. But we have been told to live the principles of the gospel that the Book of Mormon teaches so we may be ready when the Savior returns. We are not told to take the book and then pull everything all apart in it and pull the prophet's life all apart and to cross-examine everything in the Church for it would take YEARS examining through all of this stuff. Well we don't have the time to do all that.
It's just amazing that I was just listening to the Book of Mormon audio download before seeing this podcast. I heard English that seems strange in it's grammar and other things that would cause doubts to anyone who does not have the witness by the Spirit. It's so wonderful that Joseph dictated what the writers have written concerning it's coming forth that " if there are mistakes they are the mistakes of men". Some of the main writers have seen our day and knew that we will have questions about the literary form of the book. I believe God intended that the weaknesses or human èrr of the ancient prophets would be included to develop our faith. I begin to become less concerned about its literary superiority because the doctrines in this great and marvelous work are of eternal truths. It makes the veil between heaven and earth thinner. They are melodies that are familiar which have been taken away, songs I've heard before.
I don't understand. So you know something is true because you "have the witness of the Spirit," but a book that purports to have been written in the witness of the Spirit by someone who claimed to be a prophet with access to the witness of the Spirit may contain errors, and these errors may be discerned by other people who have the witness of the Spirit. Gosh but that sounds like a circular argument.
@@joeoleary9010 LOL Not to mention the fact that "the most correct book on earth" had to be corrected by the typesetter because the manuscript was so bad, and then the second edition had numerous corrections as well---almost 4,000 in total.
@@randyjordan5521 If the gold plates never existed, how did Joseph get numerous witnesses to stand by their stories until their dying day, even when some of them later became angry with joseph and left the church? How could Joseph have known about the ancient cement technology in the first century B.C. in mesoamerica? How could Joseph Smith make up dozens of names in the Book of Mormon that would later be shown to be authentic semetic names? Where did Joseph get the idea of ancient scripture written on metal plates? How did Joseph Smith know about ancient practices regarding preservations of sacred texts? Why do other ancient documents support the Book of Mormons idea that ancient Joseph prophesied of Moses and Aaron? If there was no apostasy in the Church of Jesus Christ, then what happened to the prophets? At a time when all Christian churches taught that temples were no longer needed how did Joseph so effectively restore the ancient temple concept on his own? If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why are we the only ones with 12 apostles like it clearly was back then? Now for the fun part. Bible verses 😄 Ezekiel 37:16-17 talks about 2 "sticks" where Judah will write upon it and Joseph will write upon it. Why has nothing come up about what Joseph has written besides the book of mormon? It also says they will be joined together into one "stick" which is how we use the bible and BoM together. End of John 15 and beginning of John 16 it talks about how we will be hated for Christs name. However this could potentially be talking about all Christians in general which is true, But in our early church we were killed over it and it says that we will be killed over it. John 10:16 clearly talks about other people that he needs to bring the gospel to. (people of the BoM) Amos 3:7 talks about revelation but no "mormons" are crazy to think modern revelation can happen. 3 kingdoms of glory (plan of salvation) 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 Need for a restoration: Acts 3:19-21 Priesthood authority: Hebrews 5:4 (not scripture) but there was a study dont on the Book of Mormon using stylometry proving the BoM was written by multiple people and not one man. (Non LDS statistician that teamed up with BYU) Title:"On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship" Authors: John L. Hilton, et al. Published in: BYU Studies, Volume 30, number 3- Summer 1990 Bible verses that talk about works along with faith: James 2:14-26 Matthew 5:16 Mathew 7:21 Ephesians 2:10 Galatians 6:9-10 1 Corinthians 6:9 Revelation 14:13 Apostolic authority: Ephesians 2:19-20 Talks about us becoming Gods: John 10:34-36 2 Peter 1:4 1 John 3:2 John 17:20-21 Psalm 82 Ephesians 4:5 talks about how we should be one and not split off when we dislike what we heard (mainly for baptists who make new denominations since catholics are under one) Ephesians 2:20 talks about how his church will be built upon apostles and prophets with Christ being the chief cornerstone. You got aposltes? Christ became exalted and wasn't always: Acts 2:30-33 Philippians 2:9 Acts 5:30-33 Luke 22:69 Mark 16:19 1 Peter 3:22 Ephesians 1:2 We can become like Christ: Romans 8:29-30 Revelation 3:21-22 Revelation 2:26-29 Psalm 82:1-8 John 10:32-35 Acts 17:29 Hebrews 12:9 Talks about preaching to the dead or baptisms for the dead: 1 Corinthians 15:29 1 Peter 3:18-20 1 Peter 4:5-6 Baptism is required: 1 Peter 3:21 Hebrews 11:32-40 states in verse 40 that they without us cannot be made perfect. Which means we can do work for the dead and they cant be made perfect and like Christ without us. Ezekiel 11:15-21 talks about how Israel will be scattered but will be gathered together. (who has more missionaries than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?) Jude 1:15 talks about how we will be judged for being ungodly Jude 1:18 talks about in the last days there will be mockers Jude 1:23 talks about how people will hate our idea of garments and mock us about it (yet garments are "CRAZY" to non LDS) Hebrews 7 talks about the Melchizedek Priesthood and how it is superior over the Aaronic priesthood (who has the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood?) Hebrews 7:4 mentions patriarch which we have Hebrews 7:5 talks about paying tithes (to my knowledge Catholics do as well) Hebrews 7:26 mentions the position of High Priest 1 Peter 1:3 talks about how Christ is Heavenly Fathers son (Godhead) Acts 7:55 "and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (somehow they are the same person!!) Isaiah 2:2-3 talks about how the Lords house will be built in the top of the mountains. Utah literally means "people of the mountains". That is where our church headquarters is and where the main temple (which is the house of the Lord) is. Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly comee to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts." "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." This prophesy was fulfilled April 3, 1836, when Elijah the prophet did come suddenly to the temple in Kirtland, Ohio, and besowed the sealing keys of the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Acts 3:22 says how "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." (sounds like he will raise up a prophet to me) Amos 8:11-12 talks about how there will be a famine in the land, but not a famine of bread or thirst but of the words of the Lord and anybody who seeks or searches for it will not find it. (pretty sure a restoration is needed then!!) Revelation 16:15 "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame" Sounds like a need for garments in the last days for me. Revelation 22:16 (which is prophesy for the last days!!) "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." An angel will come and testify!!!! (MORONI) Restoration: Isaiah 11:11-12 Daniel 2:34-35, 44 Malachi 3: 1-3 Acts: 3:20-25 If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why does no other church have the seventy besides LDS? Exodus 24:1,9 Numbers 11:16 Luke 10:1.17 Joel 2:28 says that a young man will see a vision (first vision!!) James 5:14-15 talks about Elders and how they will give blessings with oil (We do that!!) 😄😄😄
I devoured Fam Petersen and Truman Madsen content along with FARMS and FairMormon for years. It wasn’t until I trusted that The Truth should be able to stand scrutiny and dared to read the “rest of the story”. The only way to get balanced information about the church and it’s happenings is to go find all the info that’s been suppressed and held back from the membership, believing that the membership could not handle the Truth. 🤦♀️ Such a disappointing finding that they didn’t trust the membership to search, ponder and pray and use their own ability to come to truth for themselves. The only way out of circular reasoning is the breaking of the closed loop circuit and plug into a network to reach more balanced and honest information.
39:40 If I recall Joseph had also picked up a sudden urge to be baptized from reading about it in the Book of Mormon as the subject appeared. Strange for Joseph to become inspired by and motivated into action from parts of a book he should already be familiar with in advance, if he supposedly authored it. (Edit: Joseph Smith-History 1:67-68)
I don't recall hearing about any "sudden urge to be baptized", in line with the dictation of the BOM, but I'd have some questions/comments about that, if you'd care to have a dialog. 1) Your observation, if correct, would be in line with "A" leading to "B", but it is also in line with "B" leading to "A", or even "C" leading to both "A" and "B". That is, perhaps JS dictated the parts about baptism *because* he had a sudden interest in it; or perhaps he had just heard/read some discussion about baptism and decided to write it into the BOM *and also* become interested in being baptized at the same time. 2) Why would JS have an urge to be baptized by someone when God had already told him that all Christian churches were in apostasy? It would be like you going to the Jehovah's Witnesses to be baptized, when you think they're a false belief. If your observation is correct, it would actually undermine the claims of the veracity of the FV.
@@toy-bomtheoneyearbookofmor6174I think one such source might be Joseph Smith-History 1:67-68. 1) My observation was under an assumption if JS authored the BOM, he ideally already wrote in its entirety, not writing such a complex work on the fly which seems too difficult. Only when the translation reached a part about baptism in the BOM did he also become interested in being baptized. It's just a small example of a pattern of multiple seemingly first-time reactions to the content of BOM. If these are just pretenses, they never seem to drop. 2) Nonsense, the urge lead to an enquiry with Lord followed a visit from a resurrected John the Baptist, not joining another church. And I suppose in a case he had, did Peter by separating himself from the Gentiles at Antioch undermine his vision of the unclean animals?
@@treystone9464, you said, "My observation was under an assumption if JS authored the BOM, he ideally already wrote in its entirety, not writing such a complex work on the fly which seems too difficult." My assumption is quite different. I assume that JS had the "bones" or the overall story of the BOM in mind before he started dictating, but he filled in details along the way. The BOM isn't actually very complex at all. Almost all of it is very linear. I find many parts of it are consistent with extemporaneous oral dictation (one example of many is Alma 24:19, "...and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace."). Further, if JS had had it all written down already, why would he need to dictate it to have it be written down? And, if he had it all written down to start with, why couldn't he reproduce the lost 116 pages by simply rereading it?
@@toy-bomtheoneyearbookofmor6174 The presence of intentional Chiasmus would seem to dictate that every line had to be planned out in advance by someone. Not on the fly. There is a complex timeline too. Its a masterpiece without considering how short a time it was produced. If I were to think JS were the author, I'd have think it had been worked on for years prior to dictation, so he shouldn't be moved by his own work if he wrote it a long time ago. The scribing, the surprises, every detail is all pretense if he is the author. Or he's not the author and he is surprised, which I think is the case. If you insist it's a fiction, I must insist its a multiyear work of a ghostwriter not a two-month work of Joseph Jr.
@toy-bomtheoneyearbookofmor6174 so do you think someone like steven king could have the framework, or bones, of a story in his brain, and then sit down with a stranger and dictate the whole novel in 3 months without ever going back and reworking the story? And he's one of the most prolific writers of all time.
I never pay attention to critics of the BoM. I read it intensely when I was called to be Gospel Doctrine class teacher when I was 21 yrs old. I received a spiritual witness after six months of study. I need no other witness.
@@ethanevensen3752 Sure, anything that teaches lessons the induces the goodness of mankind is faith promoting and can lead to the divine regardless of the story being real or fictional. The difference between DUMBO and the BOM is that DUMBO is based on a true story and the BOM is fictional.
It’s interesting that we today are so bothered by changes made to restorative scriptures when in JS’s days they were very aware of these changes being made via versions etc.. Another problem with our presentism and lack of historical understanding that we still are troubled by these old issues.
@@mormonismwiththemurph According to several Jewish scholars, the Hebrew concept of a Prophet was more about reinterpreting past scriptures than predicting the future. They claim that Christian tend to conflate the Greek view of Oracles with the Hebrew view of Prophets. Jews see prophetic renegotiation of scripture happening constantly within the page of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The concept of static scripture really does not show even in Christianity until after the Protestant Reformation.
Great video! Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, it was accurate, valid, and on point to the Book's narrative! Well done gentlemen! The Book of Mormon is another volume of scripture, that testifies of Jesus Christ and His gospel. That's the message of the Book, and it's true! Among the writings of that message, are descriptions of where and when it took place. The Church's main focus and mission is to proclaim and teach the Gospel of Christ; the Book of Mormon & Biblical geography are not topics the Church dwells on, thus many latter-day saints are unaware Joseph precisely claimed and declared Zarahemla was in Central America. Joseph was most intuned and familiar with the Book, he translated it, had visitations from its prophets, had visions of its people, cities, and cultures; Joseph is the expert on the Book. The actual first published claim of a Central America setting for Zarahemla & Bountiful (aka Mesoamerica): was from Joseph Smith and Apostles John Taylor & Wilford Woodruff who unitedly as editors, first claimed and published an 'important fact' in the Church's paper The Times and Seasons on October 1, 1842, declaring Zarahemla was in Central America, within the borders of Guatemala; they went on to clarify they weren't declaring or naming a specific ruin as the exact location of Zarahemla within Guatemala, only that Zarahemla was within the area of Guatemala borders (as known to them at the time). To substantiate the claim and declaration, Joseph, being very familiar with the details of the BOM, quotes Alma 22 describing the region where Zarahemla was. There's no hearsay about it; true story look it up; we have the publication, it's real. The Church has never refuted the publication or claim. The Church's current statement on BOM geography verifies Joseph as editor during the publications relating to BOM geography in 1842. It also says Joseph stated and believed there was Book of Mormon evidence in both North and Central America; both are on this continent as the Book calls it. This cannot be discounted away, it's a fact in the history books. The T&S editorial is simply wonderful, notice how the editors clarify the city of Zarahemla, as the one burnt at the time of the Lord's crucifixion; why would they need to specify the one burnt at the Savior's crucifixion; isn't there only one Zarahemla? Because, they knew there was another current city, with the name of Zarahemla, developed by the Latter-day Saints across the river from Nauvoo. Joseph, John, & Wilford wanted to clarify so no one was confused by the two different cities with the name of Zarahemla. No need for speculation, Joseph clears it all up in the same edition of the T&S. Long before any scholar pronounce their own theory as to the location of the land of Zarahemla, Joseph had already declared it to be in Central America, in the southern region of the continent, just like the BOM describes. No scholars or theories needed to narrow down the general area, Joseph did it for us. Thanks, Brother Joseph! Also, know, in the same T&S Oct 1, 1842 edition, the editors (Joseph, John, & Wilford) refute the conspiring claims, suggesting Joseph had fled the area of Nauvoo and is on the run. Truth is, Joseph was still in the area and still very much editor of what was published in the T&S Oct 1, 1842; while at the same time avoiding false arrest of conspiring men. Read the full edition, Joseph was still around and still very much in charge, as represented & substantiated by the T&S article itself. So a very special thanks to the editors(Joseph, John, & Wilford), for documenting this conspiracy so long ago and clearing it up, so future generations wouldn't have to speculate about it. Here's an interesting collaboration on what Joseph would have seen on available maps regarding Guatemala's borders when Joseph made his declaration; google - "map of Guatemala 1825" (or 1835, it doesn't matter) open a properly labeled map and notice Guatemala's borders back in Joseph's day extended as far north to include the Chiapas & Palenque areas of modern-day Mexico. Say what! A very interesting area indeed! With Zarahemla in Central America according to Joseph, does the BOM narrative accommodate Joseph's other claims of "“wandering over the plains of the Nephites," and the Zelph story? Could both be accurate and plausible? Yes, in fact, these stories actually collaborate with the BOM narrative precisely with no contradiction. Alma 63 and Helaman 3:3-5,12-16 states many groups of Nephites left the land of Zarahemla & Bountiful and migrated to the north country, both by land and by sea. This also accounts for how a Zelph-type character and other descendants of converted Lamanites were in the northern country during the last struggles. Remember these Nephites departed FROM the lands of Zarahenla and Bountiful sailing across a sea. Also note, there is a sea, not just land, between Zarahemla and the land of a New Jerusalem in the north country. So yes, there are plains of Nephites in the heartland of the north country, known currently today as The United States of America. There are no contradictions by Joseph, and no mental gymnastics or exclusions are required to make things fit. The book itself, says we will find evidence of Nephite cultures in the heartland of North America; any evidence found in the heartland collaborates with the Book stating other Nephite groups left the lands of Zarahemla & Bountiful of the southern region of the continent (aka Central America). Here's a fun tidbit, apparently Mormon lived in the north country until he was 11 years old, when his father then moved them to the land southward, even to Zarahemla. see Mormon 1:6. No scholars are needed to locate the region of the continent where the city of Zarahemla was; Joseph already took care of it in 1842; it's in Central America; to attempt to speculate this truth away is futile. After studying the Book of Mormon and Joseph's statements, coupled with my own personal experiences, I agree with what Joseph published, Zarahemla, is somewhere in Central America (aka Mesoamerica). I also, know and understand, there were other Nephite groups who left the lands of Zarahemla & Bountiful who migrated north and settled all across the north country, known currently as the "heartland" of the United States of America. Zarahemla is in Central America, the southern region of this Continent, the narrative of the BOM is correct; it all fits, placing the New Jerusalem in the "heartland" of the current United States of America. All things considered, it all fits as stated both by Joseph and the Book.
The chiasmus in Alma 36 is also impressive given earlier in the BOM we learn Alma was very convincing with his words when leading people away from the church. Much later in Alma 36 - which is a letter, not Moronis abridgement, we get an insight into just how good he was with his words. There is almost no way to explain this chapter away other than an ancient author. First we are told, then we are shown in Alma 36.
I hate to tell you this but chiasmus is not evidence for some ancient text. There is chiasmus in the D/C and that is not ancient. We really need better scholarship in the church instead of apologists.
@@mikez1114 There is a difference between chiasmus generally, which shows up in many, many cultures and Semitic style chiasmus which is a literary art form, that has a number of literary features that also show up in Alma 36. The D&C has relatively short, and simple chiasmus, not long and highly elaborate ones. The short ones are all over the place in English literature and elsewhere, and seem to happen by chance, rather than by intention. Once a scholar approaches these subjects, they are immediately engaged in apologetics, unless it is to disconfirm or cast doubt on the text. The line between "real scholarship" and "apologetics" is drawn between whether the data supports the claims, or does not support the claims the way you're talking about it. Our best apologists have always been scholars, not amateurs. I hope in the next video Murph asks Dan about people like Dr. Thomas Murphy and Dr. Brian Hauglid, who are members that hold that Joseph just made it all up. How do we as members continue in embracing the Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, when the Church allows dissenting views to be publicly aired and embraced? What reason do we have to be members of the Church at all if the Book of Mormon and revelation scripture is a lie and a farce, and you can hold those positions as a good-standing member? That's something I want to know.
Finding The Interpreter has been very heartening for me. Some of the scholarship is a bit too cerebral for an amateur like me, but there's a ton of fascinating research being done.
The Book of Mormon as a type of Christ: -So the Book of Mormon has an origin in Heaven just like Jesus -both are prophesied to come by prophets -both are sent by God to bring truth, covenants, and salvation -Christ is made perfect through what he experienced and through the furnace of affliction just as the plates have to be refined in the furnace to be formed -Christ suffered and bleed from every pour before he was pierced by nails, the plates were pierced over and over and engraved on every page by a tool that’s basically a nail -the Book of Mormon was rejected by the people it was sent to save just as Christ was rejected by the people He was meant to save -Christ: buried and sealed in a stone sepulcher just as the BoM buried and sealed in a stone box -Christ: round stone covered tomb BofM: round stone covered box -Christ and the Book Teach the Spirits of the Dead -Christ rises from the dust just as the BOM rises from the dust -Christ: Angels present when stone was rolled back, BofM: Angel present when stone was rolled back -Christ has 11 official witnesses (12 apostles- Judas) BOM has 11 witnesses (3 witnesses + 8 witnesses) -BOM man can get nearer to god by abiding by its precepts than any other book and Christ man can get nearer to god by abiding by its precepts than any other man - Christ is the word BOM is the word!
I would like to modify one of Dan’s statements toward the end of the video [my insertion]: “[LDS] People with superb training in ancient studies and so on still believe it to be true and believe it to be credible.” I know this is not necessarily relevant to Dan’s specific arguments about the historicity of the BOM. Blake Ostler is in the comment section and has already pointed this out. Regardless, the total disregard of a historical BOM in the secular world needs to be accounted for. It appears that academia will not take the historicity of the BOM seriously as an ancient text. The consensus, today, in academia is that the BOM is a 19th century religious production. Why is this so? A grand conspiracy among secularists? Fear of dismissal from the academy? Loss of reputation? Why are we left with Peterson, Welch, Sorenson, and Ostler to produce apologia on the matter? Where are the academics from Latin America? The Middle East? Why does no one take this text seriously if it is so clear to believing LDS scholars that the BOM is a historical text? Does the baggage of “Mormonism” really have the weight to dissuade scholars from uncovering truth? These are possibly ground breaking truths. Does the insertion of a Native American angel into the provenance of the book automatically delegitimize the text? Does the purported translation with divine stones detract possible inquisitors? It shouldn’t because of the witnesses and the sheer existence of the text, right? Is the dismissal of the BOM really all attributed to religion? I ramble a bit here, but this is a significant part of the discussion regarding the BOM and it’s historicity. The historicity of the BOM is not necessarily linked to its divinity. Both spheres should be able to stand on their own feet. The religious at BYU and elsewhere attempt to converge these two spheres, academia has not. Both have come up with explanations. One supernatural, the other natural. Testimony is inextricably linked to the historicity of the BOM (in believing spheres). Divorcing the two is not possible in correlated Mormonism. That is why Vogel’s explanations will always be refuted. Secular lenses will always be dismissed by believing scholars. Any naturalist will tell you it is more plausible that a handful of 19th century BOM witnesses were guided through a meditation than the existence of resurrected native Americans distributing golden books that could only be translated with the aid of rocks. Believers scoff. Same goes for the content of the BOM. Every year, it seems like we get a better understanding of JS’s milieu. Turns out, he was not that dumb. With every passing year, the plausibility of his authorship increases. At the same time, archeologists claim the legitimacy of the BOM has increased. That is not so in academia. This must be accounted for.
Do you have data on: (1) how many actual biblical scholars have not only read but studied and read the studies about the BofM: (2) what percentage of those scholars didn't already have their own biases that would affect their views? Isn't what is important is explaining the evidence that has presented in favor of the Book of Mormon in a scholarly and objective (at least as objective as one is capable of being) in a way that does justice to it without simply writing it off based on the number of votes? Remember that the vast majority of scholars accepted phrenology; the blank-slate theory of human knowledge; the Fleischmann-Pons’s Nuclear Fusion theory; Einstein's static universe view; and atomism. It is very simple to see that votes and even consensus are simply irrelevant to truth; what is relevant is the evidence. An d you haven't come close o dealinng with that.
@@blakeostler8965 I appreciate the reply. (1) I do not have the data you are requesting. I would be shocked if not one non-LDS scholar of antiquity (besides Coe who seemed to tolerate the LDS) took the BOM seriously. You would know better than me (especially since you seem to think you know better than everyone). (2) Every one of those scholars who have engaged with the BOM approached it with their respective biases. This is a given. So do you. Just about as given that voting does not determine truth. Who really believes that? I am not claiming that your arguments (and Dan’s) should be ignored. I am simply pointing out that the secular world doesn’t seem to care about what you have to say about the historical BOM. I look forward to the day the BOM is taken seriously by the academic world. You will finally have a target to aim for instead of stomping on “ignorant exmormons”. Unfortunately, us simple minded people don’t have the time or means to decipher near-eastern, biblical, and meso-American scholarship like you do. We have jobs, families, and lives outside of the BOM. We rely on others to present arguments on platforms like Murph’s to come to our own conclusions. We all can take as much time as we need. On another note, and while I have the attention of the ‘god’ of apologetics, I hope you don’t take this too personally, but you have failed to convey your message (I am talking in general now). I shared my thoughts on Murph’s interview of you about this. You have great arguments but you simply come off as a condescending and arrogant man. I have listened to many, many of your appearances. You treat everyone who knows less than you like ignorant fools. No matter the legitimacy of your argument, or the facts presented, you will not get anyone to listen if you discuss your interpretations like this. What’s with that dog at the end of your comment? Really? I am a stranger online? How can you have any idea what I have dealt with from a comment on a UA-cam video? You are just proving my point. All the best, friend.
@@DevilsRavioli My first inclination is to see your response as a passive-agressive personal attack. My question is this: how could asking questions trigger you like that? My considered response is to learn from your feedback. In that vein, I will do my best to not be arrogant and to stop knowing as much. :) Just what in my response suggests that somehow I know more or am arrogant? With respect to the questions: how are they arrogant or out of line? Honest question. These seem like questions that virtually anyone ought to ask of what you asserted. In response to your queery: There are in fact non-Mormon scholars who take the Book of Mormon seriously: Margaret Barker (biblical scholar) and Sami Hanna (who translated the Book of Mormon into Arabic and was a Near Eastern languages expert and later joined he church). I personally knew Fr. Bricarello who was an Egyptologist in Turin, Italy at the Egyptian Museum who joined the church after determining that the Book of Mormon had numerous Egyptianisms and was consistent with his understanding of the ancient world. But let's admit that the vast majority to not believe the Book of Mormon. The real question is: of that vast majority, how many have taken the text seriously enough to actually study it and the evidence for it? I suspect that their background approach to issues of religious texts make it so that even the concept of a Book of Mormon that is genuine is not a live option for them. (That is actually my experience), Thus, they can dismiss it out of hand. As someone quipped - the Book of Mormon is not a book one has to read to have an opinion about it.
Well I think it can be accounted for because there is kind of no way to separate the divinity from the historicity in the case of the Book of Mormon. With the Bible non-believing academia can separate the two to some extent by parsing out the historical information from the text and selectively ignoring or discounting the divine elements professed there (prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc.). It is impossible to do that with the Book of Mormon as the very source of the historicity requires acceptance of a divine element. I have seen this played out in the books I have written regarding the BOM for which I always have paid peer review done, sometimes using a third party entity to oversee the review so that they are completely blind reviews and non-LDS for the most part as far as I can tell from the results of the review. One reviewer commented that my work (involving a comparison of Olmec archeology and culture with the Jaredites) was very good. He added, "OK stuff about Joseph Smith and angel is of course bullshit, but the Book of Mormon does seem to be some kind of ancient text." Another on a different book I wrote showing that the Jaredite (and other BOM) names were constructed using Sumerian etymological units using Mesoamerican methods of forming names commented (he was an expert in Sumerian with advance degrees and research) that my methodology and use of Sumerian source material were good but commented that if my research was in fact correct, than that would mean that "the BOM is in fact true, but of course it CANNOT be." So basically that is the way I see it. What you are saying you would like to happen does seem ideal, but I can honestly never see it happening with the divine genesis and trappings of the book and the text.
Murph, you are the first podcast ive seen that come from a knowledgable place of the critics arguments, and yet are able to convey them to a believing audience becaues you have returned to belief. I appreciate so much this form of dialogue. As someone who left belief in the truth claims, (because i was living an unhealthy perfectionistic version of the religion, as well as the historical and logical inconcsitencies) but could never leave it alone- not in a critical sense, but in a curiosity sense- i fiind your perspective and approach similar to one i might have if i were to return to faith. I want to give the book of mornon annother chance. For all the grief the critics give Dan, (and i wont lie, i enjoy a lot of their content) i found Dan's actual framework for his views to be surprisingly rational here. I should clirify im referring to Daniel Peterson, not Dan Vogul, (and they really need to do a video together- Murph, if you could make that happen- im sure youve thought of that) I appreciate dialouge of thi kind more than pretty much any other kind of media. Thank you both for this exceptional conversation, looking forward to hopefully many more videos like this.
I really appreciate that, I try my best to stealman or convey the critical arguments and what to explore answers and talk with scholars. I'd love to bring on Dan Vogel and Dan Peterson, I think they could have a great discussion!
As you consider returning to Mormonism, just consider the fact that Mormonism teaches the very sin of Lucifer that got him removed from heaven according to Isaiah. This is no light thing. The choice isn't between being right about Jesus or being wrong about a few points. Its about being right about Jesus or adopting the very sin of the devil himself.
@@blusheep2 I’m trying to understand what you mean by the sin of Lucifer? Pride? Wanting the glory of God? Are you advocating Protestant Christianity then?
@@zmb5126 Thank you for your curiosity. I am a protestant Christian. Isaiah 43:10 reads, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, _and understand that I am he: BEFORE me there was no God formed, neither shall there be AFTER me."_ Lucifer was removed from heaven. We read about it in Isaiah 14:12 _"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" In Isaiah 14:14 we read about the ambition of Lucifer that got him kicked out of heaven. He said, _"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."_ What does he mean by "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds?" In the ancient world the gods were said to be above the clouds. In the OT, in Baal worship, in Egypt, etc, the gods were said to "be above the clouds," "ride on the clouds," "ride on the clouds of heaven," "come on the clouds," etc. So in modern words the verse would read like this, "I will become a God. I will be like the Most High." Lucifer was removed from heaven because Lucifer wanted to be a god and thought he could be. It WAS pride of course but it was pride in the form of believing he could be like God. This is what the Mormon church and Joseph Smith teaches. In fact, are not the temple ordinances like marriage, baptism and the priesthood all requirements to reach the celestial kingdom where one can become a god? This is my opinion here, but it seems to me that Mormons give a lot of lip service to the father and I imagine that they genuinely respect and love the father but their real aim isn't about the father at all but becoming like the father... like the Most High. I hope that clears things up.
I greatly admire Dan for his perservernece in the face of nasty comments. He is a PhD who has indepth knowledge of the Middle East and ancient cultures there. He has spent a lifetime studying the Book of Mormon and does a great job defending it. I encourage others to listen to what he says.
Interestingly, if you ask ChatGPT about the Book of Mormon, it is ambivalent, stating that there is disagreement among scholars, and showing points in favour and against the historical authenticity of the book. When I asked about Flat-Earth theories, ChatGPT was adamant that Flat-Earth theories are absolutely false. I then got it to break down the chiasmus of Alma 36. The result is below for anyone interested: A: Introductory Material (verses 1-3) B: Alma’s Life Before Conversion (verses 4-11) C: Alma's Vision on the Road to Damascus (verses 12-15) D: Alma's Anguish and Suffering (verses 16-17) E: Alma's Cry to Jesus Christ (verse 18) F: Alma's Experience of Conversion (verses 19-20) G: Alma's Praise of God (verse 21) H: The Lord's Answer to Alma (verses 22-23) G': Alma's Praise of God (verses 24-26) F': Alma's Experience of Conversion (verses 27-28) E': Alma's Cry to Jesus Christ (verse 29) D': Alma's Anguish and Suffering (verses 30-31) C': Alma's Vision on the Road to Damascus (verses 32-33) B': Alma’s Life After Conversion (verses 34-42) A': Concluding Material (verses 43-45) It isn't the best analysis, but it was able to make a parallel between Alma and Saul/Paul, which was interesting. Further inquiry when ChatGPT was directly fed the Alma 36 text, and asked to assume the text is a chiasmus (loading the dice a bit), the following elements are identified throughout. The response is below: "A: Introduction and exhortation to listen (verses 1-2) B: Remembrance of the captivity of the fathers (verse 2) C: Plea for the son to hear and learn (verse 3) D: Distinction between temporal and spiritual, carnal mind and God (verse 4) E: Testimony of divine revelation through an angel (verses 5-8) F: Command to stop seeking destruction of the church (verses 8-10) G: Response of fear and amazement (verse 11) H: Torment and remembrance of sins (verses 12-15) I: Desire to be banished and extinct (verse 15) J: Racked with torment for three days and three nights (verse 16) K: Remembering the prophecy of Jesus Christ (verse 17) L: Crying to Jesus Christ for mercy (verse 18) K': Pains and memory of sins dissipate (verse 19) J': Exquisite pains and exquisite joy (verses 20-21) I': Vision of God on His throne (verse 22) H': Restoration of strength and testimony to the people (verse 23) G': Labors to bring souls to repentance (verse 24) F': Joy in the fruit of labors (verse 25) E': Personal knowledge from God (verse 26) D': God's deliverance and trust in Him (verse 27) C': Belief in future resurrection and praise of God (verse 28) B': Remembrance of the fathers' captivities (verses 28-29) A': Commandments bring prosperity or being cut off (verse 30) The text exhibits a chiastic structure with balanced and parallel elements, forming a concentric pattern. It demonstrates the characteristic features of a Semitic style chiasmus, such as the repetition and reversal of ideas, balanced parallels, and nested structure." However, it doesn't seem to completely be able to decide where the centre of the Chiasmus is, but I am inclined to go with verse 18-19. I wonder if we can verify Dan's hypothesis that 1 Nephi is a Chiasmus using a more powerful AI, or one that can give more extensive answers.
@@caseycosgriff We owe Welch a lot for his work on all of this. One thing I don't know whether he figured out was why element "i" in his first paper on Alma 36, was out of order. Do you happen to know?
Does the Church sponsor archaeological studies of events and people from the Book of Mormon? There must be loads of artifacts from the great wars and battles!
There aren't any archeological finds of Maya or any Mesoamerican battle sites by anyone. This expectation is not based on any science or expectation of archeology for any Mesoamerican civilization.
@@jerrygrover8992 I don't look at the book a Mormon form a religious point of view that you have to have faith to believe it From my studies there is absolutely no evidence what so ever for the book of Mormon people to have exist no Landmass, no linguistic evidence , No artifacts so it a fiction novel or we can say a fan fiction Bible to the one that believe in it
JS didnt even notice the profound parallelism in his revelation about his fathers vision... those few chapters alone are a gem of truth to which the rest of the scripture only multiply thousands of % of truthfulness confirming the Restoration of Christ's church
Great presentation, thank you so much. I love Dan and I appreciate him sharing his views and knowledge. One quick comment though, the whole “rock in the hat theory“ is nonsense. A huge enemy of Joseph Smith, a man that literally said that he looked forward to the day that he would wash his hands in the blood of Joseph Smith, he is the instigator of that fabrication and many other lies about Joseph Smith. his name was.Philastus Hurlbut. And he was quite the ConMan. He was excommunicated from the church for adultery, and for making up lies. He was hired by enemies of Joseph to go back to Joseph’s homeland and to dig up as much dirt as possible on the Prophet. He couldn’t find anyone to talk bad about Joseph Smith, so he simply made up a bunch of stories himself. He claimed Joseph’s family was a bunch of riffraff, Joseph’s dad was the town drunk, Joseph carried a magic stone in his pocket that he could look at periodically to see the future. And Philastus is also the source of the rock in the hat story. None of this is true though. They are simply concocted stories that are designed to make Joseph look like a bad person, instead of the great man that he was.Philastus Hurlbut also made up stories about Joseph being a gold digger and a money seeker. He claimed that Joseph’s magic rock could lead him to buried treasure, etc. None of these stories are true. All of it was concocted by an evil individual that hated Joseph. these writings made their way into a few newspapers and were eventually included in Fawn Brody‘s anti-Mormon writings. They have also made their way into LDS church archives. I don’t understand that part, surely people at church headquarters can understand when falsehoods are written by people who seek to destroy their reputation of a good man like Joseph. Richard Bushman even included this nonsense in his book rough stone rolling. Incorrect information like this only causes people to lose faith in a true prophet of God that was intentionally slandered.
There's a video I did about Book of Mormon translation, there are faithful sources and statements from Emma Smith, David Whitmer and Martin Harris who all witnessed the translation process and state that the translation was miraculous and by the gift and power of God. So both the faithful and unfaithful sources corroborate that this was the method done.
JS crafting complex chiasmus throughout the entire BoM in his mind only to never mention it to anyone knowing it will be discovered hundreds of years later. Great theory 😅 😂 . Such a beautiful book!
Okay, last one. Jershon would be interesting if the text a) linked inheritance with the name of the place and b) the term inheritance had some unique connection with Jershon. However, the Book of Mormon uses variants of the phrase "land of inheritance" so often, that connecting it with Jershon, in such a way as to suggest it as evidence of the Semitic nature of the BoM is presumptuous. Other lands of inheritance include Jerusalem (Old World), the Land of Nephi, the Land of Bountiful, the Jaredite land, and so on. Jershon is not unique in this. And Jershon is not clearly linked as being associated with inheritance, as it is just as, if not more connected with being a land of defense or protection.
It is interesting to me how much some people want to have proof of this or that when it comes to certain things but not other things. For example, how many people really understand anything very well, let alone perfectly? No one does. Even the most expert of experts on a given topic does not. In fact, the more one studies something the more one realizes just how much more they still don’t know and how much more there is to be understood. The more we discover the more we realize just how much more there is to discover. So, who among you holds off on anything until X amount of proof? Let him cast the first stone. How many of you could possibly write one hour of your day in sufficient detail to withstand all the possible questions that could crop up even as you are alive to answer to them, let alone 1 second after you die when you can no longer respond, and let alone after 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc? Will you be able to write such a perfect history of yourself that will withstand all the potential future presentism that you will be subjected to? Who among you really understands the language of your choosing? And yet many of you use it all the time. I find each day I awake just how much more there is to learn and explore of the language of my choosing. Who among you really understands your own body, how it functions, and the physics of the universe you are presently in? And yet many of you nonetheless continue to use your body and go about living in a universe that you really don’t understand. Science still has so much more to uncover and understand. It is just getting started, and the more it uncovers, the more we realize we still don’t know. And on and on. We all live by faith. Whether we admit it or not. The 10 to 82nd atoms in the universe including your own 7 to 15 octillion atoms might suddenly decide to go their own way tomorrow. There is nothing in science to say otherwise. We don’t know. We simply don’t know. It is all faith. For all we know, the universe is about to burp and we will all be dust in the wind, and there will be no mourning for us. We won’t even be an afterthought. It is all faith.
This is all well and good, but the problem is what this “church” demands from its people for something with next to no evidence of authenticity. This church has lied to its members for decades, hoarded money secretly until they were recently exposed, not to mention all of the backtracking and reversals of horrible policies they’ve done. Yes, I don’t know everything. But why would I put all my eggs into a basket that requires 10% of my income when the organization is richer than some Fortune 500 companies? A “church” that shames people’s bodies by making them wear horribly uncomfortable and ugly underwear? I don’t know if god is real or not, but I know this “church” is a fraud.
It would be extremely interesting for your audience, if you could arrange it, to have Mr. Petersen and Dan Vogel on together; posit several challenging questions and ask each to respond with his best explanation. Re today's episode "very difficult to account for" how Beethoven was composing symphonies at 8yrs old. The same old presumption the Book of Mormon must be historical because JS couldn't possibly have written it has a more satisfying and plausible explanation, if Mr. Petersen ever dare to look. So much taken for granted as true here that doesn't auger anywhere but among other apologists, who state as matter of fact, e.g., that Joseph Smith knew the geography of the Arabian peninsula, when objective scrutiny by unbiased observers debunks the assertion. None of Mr. Peterson's presentation addresses the avalanche of evidences that counter his conclusion that Book of Mormon's "complexity" makes it true.
Interesting Peterson quotes Emma Smith when making a point about JS level of education, but does not accept Emma Smith when she claims JS never taught or practiced Polygamy. It’s as selective as Hales. Believe the women, but only when they write aligned to a ‘faithful’ view of 19th century history.
Dan didn't originate with the loan shifting argument. He merely proposed it. Also the nephites and lamanitrs never talk about riding horses into battle.
@@mormonismwiththemurph LOL. The horse has been man's most important domestically-trained animal for at least 6000 years. The BOM story alleges that its people came from the Middle East, where horse and chariot use was common. If the BOM people didn't ride horses into battle (as the story has Ammon preparing the king's horses and chariots), then the BOM people must have been the dumbest sumbitches who ever lived. Your apologetic does not negate the fact that the BOM states that there were domesticated horses in pre-Columbian America, when in fact they didn't exist until the Spaniards brought them in the 1500s.
As Murph pointed out -- there is no mention of anyone riding horses in the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, a painting by Arnold Frieburg, used by the Church for several years, had that image. It was incorrect.
@@jeffschrade4779 Modern domesticated horses did not exist in the Western Hemisphere until the Spaniards brought them in the 1500s. So, no matter how the Book of Mormon says that its characters used or didn't use horses, the mere fact that the book states that humans had and used horses in Pre-Columbian America tells us that the book is a fake. That is just one of the many anachronisms in the book which makes it a 19th century hoax. Its author was simply unaware that horses didn't exist in the Americas before Columbus. That anachronism is why some Mormon apologists have floated the silly theory that the horses mentioned in the BOM may have actually been deer or tapir. That theory is silly because if deer or tapirs could have been domesticated and used like horses are, the Mayans and Aztecs would have still been using them that way when the Spaniards arrived. Such theories demonstrate the ridiculous level that Mormon apologists must descend to in order to defend the book's authenticity.
Everyone assumes the climate of North America in Nephite times was the same as it is today. The climate of North America during the Nephite timeline was the Middle Woodland Period. The climate was much milder, a lot more rain, and snowed only occasionally on the northern parts of the land. Therefore, the Land Northward/Desolation in the Heartland Model would have been the only area to get snow occasionally. I grew up in Utah, and I've experienced numerous days in winter that was warm enough with the sun I was sweating, especially shoveling snow or running around. The Lamanite lands never would have had snow. The Nephites who had snow occasionally wore full cover of clothing and the Lamanites wore only loin clothes. It makes sense. Also, Sea North and Sea South aren't mentioned until the land of Desolation gets settled in mass. So when Helaman 3 is describing the settling of people, I believe it's describing the land of Desolation being settled specifically. Therefore, the land of Desolation would spread from Sea North to Sea South, and from Sea East to Sea West, which would be a perfect description of the lower peninsula of Michigan. The other seashore mentioned east to the west of Nephi and the seashore east if the east wilderness would be the waters of Ripliancum/Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.
Isn't the "quote" from Emma about JS not being able to write a coherent sentence coming from the same news letter where she supposedly stated there wasn't polygamy, no book or draft was present during the translation, and that JS would pick up where he left off? This comes from a publication from an RLDS apostle a few weeks after Emma's death, so she didn't have the chance to refute it, and it shamelessly "proves" the RLDS are correct rather than the Brighamites. Isn't that enough to throw the whole thing out as a source? Secondly, I would love to hear Dan's take on Islam, the Quran and Mohommed. I'm not the first to point out that JS and Mohommed have similar origin stories, meek people producing rich, consistent scripture that establishes a new religion. Why does Dan subscribe to the mormon origin and Joseph Smith and the BoM, but not necessarily to Mohommed's and the Quran? I imagine there may big important pieces missing in the latter, but would love if Dan shared his take on it!
Re the quote about not being able to write a letter -- I've heard that that was an 1800s equivalent of "can't chew gum and walk at the same time" -- that is, an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally, because the "well-written letter" was something taught in elementary school. I think I heard it in one of Rick Bennett's interviews (probably the 2nd of the 2-part series he did with Dr. WIlliam Davis, titled "Re-evaluating Translation Timeline for the BOM").
I have always thought that many authors who conceived of fictional realms, even J.R. Tolkein, created maps and drawings of their kingdoms for reference. Joseph didn't do this. There is no evidence of this anywhere in all the hundreds of documents we have in the Joseph Smith papers. All the geographical references he made sprang from his memory alone, or from revelation and the historicity of the information in the Book of Mormon itself. Also, after the Book of Mormon was published, Joseph at times spoke of how certain events from the Book of Mormon, occurred in the local area. If he were going to assert that Book of Mormon events were local, why would he not have made that completely obvious and linked to local landmarks in his translation? He definitely didn't pre-meditate this con very well...The arguments made by those who would call him a con artist have fallen short in explaining how someone could sustain such a remarkably elaborate con without attempting to orchestrate it in a much more organized and logical way.
Your entire argument falls apart when you mention the word "revelation". That is basically a synonym of fiction. Tolkien had "revelations" on how to craft Middle Earth all the time during the writing of LOTR. And yeah, I would hope Joey had a good memory of the geography in the area he grew up in. Also, he DID link local landmarks to his translation. Some of the names of places and people in the BoM are straight rip offs of locations in his area at the time. And the fact that you claim his con wasn't "elaborate" proves that you have fallen for his con, even though he's been in the grave for almost 200 years. It was the 1800s, people believed in anything that helped them explain things they couldn't explain. He didn't need a lot of pre-meditation to create the con. He was very charismatic and intelligent, like most cult leaders are. I am constantly amazed at how so many intelligent and well-studied adults my age and older manage to convince themselves this is all "real". Occam's Razor is applicable to nearly all of Joseph Smith's dealings and writings as well as the Mormon church itself. The simplest answer is the most correct one, and the simplest answer is that in order to believe in this religion, you have to abandon critical thinking as well as defend ridiculously debunkable inconsistencies. In short, the simplest answer is that it is a fraud.
There is so much talk about Chiasmus being a huge piece of evidence for the BoM. It is an old argument which has increasingly become less relevant towards a divine source for the BoM. The D&C is also full of examples of Chiasmus as is Joseph Smith's own diary... neither of which are translations from an alleged offshoot of Semitic writing styles. Interestingly, even the followers of James Strang, rival to Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon for leadership of the church at the time of Joseph Smith's death claim to have chiastic structure in a set of scripts he translated form found plates... which also have 11 eye witness'. Joseph Smith claimed to have studied the Bible since the age of 5... he was well familiar with chiasmus, and it is not out of the realm of possibility to develop a knack for naturally creating its form without trying to. The chiasmus ‘evidence’ is like trying to prove from a piece of music that its composer must have studied music theory. And yet there are tons of music, fulfilling the basics of music theory, produced by people who couldn’t even read and had no formal training whatsoever.
No, you're grasping...Chiasmus was unknown in Joseph's day, especially in America. Intricate chiasmus is not done on the fly, and you're trying (desperately) to make Joseph more educated than he was, by all accounts, including those closest to him. I don't see Chiasmus in D&C as problematic because it appears to be a Spirit driven literary device. I'm aware of no comparable chiasmus in Strang's record but will check into it. There is no equivalence in Strang's witnesses and the BoM witnesses. The Strang witnesses did not attest to any supernatural event...only that they were present when his record was dug up (most likely where previously buried by Strang or associares). And unlike the BoM winesses, there is no comparable evidence that the Strang witnesses ever repeated their testimony or defended Strang's plates during their lifetime, as the BoM witnesses did repeatedly. One Strang witness (Bacon) did later deny divine origin of Strang's record. Several Strang associates later said they helped manufacture Strang's plates. Saints Unscripted has a good video comparing the Strang and BoM witnesses. The 11 BoM witneses remained true to their testimony, despite several becoming estranged from Joseph, which is a strength of veracity. As Dan says in the interview, they stood to gain considerably by exposing the BoM as a hoax. It is critical to consider such arguments. Why did Martin risk losing his farm and his wife to participate in a hoax? Were Oliver and Sidney, both who witnessed supernatural events, co-conspirators or victims? Or telling the truth? Why did Joseph's entire family believe him? Why did Hyrum read from the BoM as he waited to die at Carthage if it was a fake? These compelling sociological aspects are ignored by critics.
@@lemjwp1756 good golly, either Joseph Smith was an uneducated hillbilly, or an extremely articulate prophet... it changes according to the narrative which is being told. The D&C wasn't written by ancient Semitic authors... unless now the newest conjecture is that the spirit and Jesus speak in chiasmus verbiage... conjecture and allowances can always further the cause of a failing apologetic stance. Let's further evaluate BoM witnesses and their claims. If they are the upstanding men we are to respect and listen to their testimonies, let's take it all in. Martin Harris was unpredictable and saw signs of the supernatural everywhere, and later even added his testimony to another scripture based book with the same gusto he used for the BoM. David Whitmer said the following: "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them." Oliver Cowdrey said he never saw a physical set of plates, but rather only visions... which goes along his frontier magic habits of using divining rod and second sight claims. If you are going to hold the BoM witnesses on a pedestal, all of their history and statements should be taken into account. We should not overlook the primary accounts of the events they testified to. The official statements published in the Book of Mormon are not dated, signed (we have no record with their signatures except for Oliver’s), nor is a specific location given for where the events occurred. These are not eleven legally sworn affidavits but rather simple statements pre-written by Joseph Smith with claims of having been signed by three men and another by eight. Finally, when evaluating the overwhelming preponderance of evidence stacked against the Book of Mormon, it strikes as close to a death blow which can be done agains the truth claims of the BoM. It takes only one anachronism to call an entire script into question. If you were to read a biography about Abraham Lincoln which included his daily blog updates, you would certainly discount the whole biography. Unfortunately for the BoM, it's not just one anachronism, or two, or three, but rather several. From the simple... metallurgy, linguistics, archeological, DNA... to the complex, Deutero Isaiah, strikingly similar concepts to popular beliefs in Joseph Smith's day and other undeniable and relatable milieu, and Native American origin theories. But bringing this back home, IMO, Dan Peterson failed to produce any evidences in this interview, and even perpetuated now disavowed evidences. As an academic with advanced credentials, he failed not only himself, but the countless other academics with the same level or higher degrees of expertise whose expert positions fly in the face of what Dan claims. ALL of the scholars cited to provide evidences for the BoM have a "need" for it to be true, and many of those have staked their careers on their claims. All BoM supporting scholars are either employed by the church or heavily connected to it. Despite countless experts outside of mormonism who have looked at the BoM, not one, ever has ever validated any of the claims made, but on the flip side, several previous touted BoM scholars who once supported the BoM have since retracted their professional support... that is telling of a bubble of bias you had earlier referenced. I look at Gee, Muhlsteen and Peterson though a lens of pity. Their whole professional lives, their private lives, their careers, their personal relationships, and their characters have all been placed in one basket of apologetic belief. It is hard to fight agains that. At the end of the day, hard core apologists are only speaking to themselves in an echo chamber validating their own incomplete beliefs. If anyone on the outside does pay attention, stretched apologetic claims only drives them away.
Mormon apologists began pushing things like chiasmus and similar "internal evidences" and "textual evidences" about a half century ago because they realized that they would never find any external evidence to support the story. Chiasmus is really just a deflection designed to try to keep members believing.
@31:50 Re cognate accusative, I was listening to the trial of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the radio and laughing out loud to recognize one as the young woman translating him said "I have sworn a swear" (i.e. oath)
At 52:50, Isn't The Hebrew New Year Rosh Hashanah, which usually falls in September? And, the heartland model would not have placed Tiancum in "Buffalo New York". It would have been much further south, probably somewhere between Tennessee and Illinois.
Murph, you said something in this interview that you have also said in other interviews that is incorrect. You indicate that the Jaredites landed in the New World which was "that quarter where there never had man been." That reference is found in Ether 2:5 but is referencing their travel BEFORE they crossed the ocean.
You're right, I checked the reference and that is one I'd been misquoting getting the context wrong and not referring to the promised land. That helps resolve a criticism!
Joseph Smith averred that the Jaredites were the first people to inhabit the Americas after the flood. Joseph Smith also taught that the first humans on earth, Adam and Eve, lived somewhere in western Missouri about 6000 years ago. Since, according to his teachings, the flood killed all humans on earth except for those aboard Noah's ark about 4500 years ago, then the Americas would have obviously been unoccupied when the Jaredites arrived shortly after the flood. That is, if you believe what Joseph Smith said. Actual science tells us that the Americas have been occupied by east Asian-descended peoples for at least 20k years. So, if Adam and Eve lived in Missouri just 6000 years ago, and thought that they were the only people there, those prehistoric Indians who lived all around them must have been vewy, vewy quiet.
Dan Peterson was in the bishopric of my student ward when I was a freshman at BYU. I'm sorry I didn't talk with him more, I didn't properly appreciate all the stuff he was doing.
It would of taken years to traveled the Americas they would travel for days settle for a while then travel again, and that’s how the Lamanits stread out all around the Americas it’s how we all spread out all over the world.
I remember the first time reading the Book of Mormon. I didn’t care how unlikely it was and how many pieces of the text appeared to be lifted from 18th century literature, I just knew it was TRUE!
1:06:29 i thought scholars were agreed that the “black and white” reference in Nephi is not referencing race, but drawing upon Old Testament terminology of black and white being righteous and sin/gloomy. It’s not an anti racism verse. Interesting to here Peterson actually think literal skin colour changed as referenced in the BOM. Most scholars reject this literal interpretation and certainly textual cues in the BOM demand it’s rejection.
Most current apologists reject the literal interpretation by using a scholarly filter. It wasn't until fairly recently that people began to claim that the skin of darkness meant something other than a skin of darkness. The church and many of its apologists are great at obscuring history to better fit into a more pleasant now.
Not just Hebrew idioms, textual analysis of "blackness" when applied to people in texts dating from the late 18th and early 19th century shoe the word is ten times more often used for Europeans who are dirty, lazy, or wicked, than to me someone from Africa, and never to mean a Native unless also indicating that they were dirty, lazy, or wicked. Disney preserves this usage today in the cartoon characters of "Black Pete", a mean bully.
@@brettmajeske3525 sure… and if we ignore decades and decades of prophets and apostles teaching the opposite in the name of god in lesson manuals, conference talks, personal correspondence, and official church letters, I might take pause. As it stands, it was meant to refer to the dark skin directly.
@@jaybravo2199 You might want to recheck those conference talks, letters, and manuals. They do not date from the time of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Both used "Negro" or "slave" far more often than "black". Brigham Young used "black" mostly to refer to apostate former priesthood holders. It was not until the mid 1900's, well after that generation had died off that LDS leaders started using "black" instead of "negro". The idiom of English changed, and most leaders did not notice. In much the same way that "after all we can do" changed in common usage and so members of the 1900s misunderstood what was clear to their grandparents. I am not claiming no one misunderstood, but I have not found explicit mention of "blackness" meaning skin color among the first generation of leaders. Some ambiguous mention in second generation, but it really is not until the third generation and later that such is the clear meaning.
@@brettmajeske3525 I can’t tell if you are being serious or just in a serious state of denial… seriously, the church’s own gospel topic essays contradict what you are saying… I mean, Brigham Young was one of the worst. But a latter day prophet is a latter day prophet right?
Are you sure it's 100% false? I've read it, and I'm not so sure it is 100% false. Maybe not totally correct, but like a lot of holy books, the contents are difficult to be pinned as just a bunch of rubbish. The only category of "holy writing" that probably are obvious frauds are the many theosophical documents produced between the late 1800s and early 1900s.
You're an ignorant fundamentalist Christian. The Quran isn't 100 percent false, and it's nothing like the Book of Mormon. It's more like that D&C, a series of revelations.
@@caseycosgriff Qu'ran = Jesus did not die. Qu'ran = Jesus is not the son of God, for Allah has no children Qu'ran = Jesus is not God Qu'ran = children are conceived, by a woman's seed, coming from her backbone (no such bone) Qu'ran = slay the unbelievers where ever you find them (2:191 Qu'ran = do not befriend non-muslims (3:28 Qu'ran = terrorize or behead those who do not believe in the Quran (8:12)
@@caseycosgriff Bible = You shall not eat any animal of the cloven hoof (including camels) Deuteronomy 14:3-7 Qu'ran = Camels we have made for you to eat (Qu'ran 22:36)
This 2 hour list would be more compelling if there were any physical artifacts from the Book of Mormon peoples. There is none. We recently discovered a pot with burnt cheese 3000 years ago idk why we can't find anything from any Nephites or Lamanites.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I'm not sure, I'm not an archeologist. But there are ways to tell, otherwise we wouldn't know about a ton of cultures through their artifacts.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I would answer by saying, inscriptions and markings on their pottery, just like we find in every other part of the world. The people of the BoM were a literate race even though no native American group in the ancient world was, as far as we can tell. Other ways might be from their jewelry and their symbols. The BoM people had very unique beliefs compared to modern native Americans. In Canaan, you can identify the difference between a Canaanite city/settlement and an Israelite city/settlement by the bones left behind. Israelites don't eat pork. Canaanites did. The Nephites and Lamanites were Jews who would have took their customs and godly laws to the new world. This should show up in the New World somewhere, I'd think. The BoM people were adept at smelting iron, the native Americans never were. Even into South America, the iron age never began until contact with outsiders. We should be able to find the remains of bronze and iron furnaces or the products themselves that the BoM people would have made. We can identify Egyptian civilization from 3000 BC, but we can't identify one artifact that matches the BoM people.
@@mormonismwiththemurph "How might we distinguish between a nephite pot from the rest of the people there?" Duh, the same way archaeologists distinguish pottery between ancient people who live just a few hundred miles from each other. And of course, Nephite pottery would be inscribed with "and it came to pass."
Care to explain why so many cities and landmarks that are named in the book of mormon are so similar to the names of cities and landmarks where Joseph Smith grew up?
Are any of those actual existing cities the world can go to and experience and agree that they actually are Nephite and/or Lamanite cities? Parallels do not establish reality, only actual artifacts from actual cities do that. Similarities are not evidences of the strength of actual cities and landmark OF Nephites, if they existed.
@@TheBackyardProfessor No kidding sherlock, I am asking that question because it shows that Joseph Smith made up the BOM and used the names of nearby towns and landmarks in the BOM.
@@TheBackyardProfessor The Hill Cuhmorah hasn't moved from upstate NY. They just got rid of the Pagent because it makes their claims look horrible since NO artifacts have ever been found there.
@@sonysoyboysaremadeoftears.7404 Less than 5% of the proper nouns in the Book of Mormon have an explicit analog with towns or landmarks near where Joseph grew up. And most of those are better explained by both frontier America and the Book of Mormon borrowing them from the Bible.
Please explain how; after Joseph Smith finally obtained the plates was able to run 3 miles back to home, through the woods, at night, fighting off 3 attackers (2 with guns) who were trying to steal the valuable 'gold' plates, while carrying (given the dimensions) about 200 lbs. of gold plates?
@@paulbrusuelas6706 Doesn't matter, Smith is a liar and the truth was never in him, but he had and still does have a lot of people thinking he did. Smith teaches of 'another' jesus than the Jesus in the Bible. Apostle Paul warns of teaching another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11), and explains; “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
The plates don't have to be solid gold, rather they had "an appearance of gold". In fact, most gold objects aren't at all solid gold. They could've weighed 50-60 pounds-ish, which is a lot, but also Joseph was a farm boy.
@@spadecrazeruns5703 Moroni describes the plates as 'gold' and it's hard to believe someone, supposedly of Hebrew descent, wouldn't know what actual gold is. Wikipedia sums it up like this; Different people estimated the weight of the plates differently. According to Smith's one-time-friend Willard Chase, Smith told him in 1827 that the plates weighed between 40 and 60 pounds (18-27 kg), most likely the latter. Smith's father Joseph Smith Sr., who was one of the Eight Witnesses, reportedly weighed them and said in 1830 that they "weighed thirty pounds" (14 kg). Smith's brother William, who had lifted the plates, thought they "weighed about sixty pounds [27 kg] according to the best of my judgment". Others who lifted the plates while they were wrapped in cloth or enclosed in a box thought that they weighed about 60 pounds. Martin Harris said that he had "hefted the plates many times, and should think they weighed forty or fifty pounds [18-23 kg]". Smith's wife Emma never estimated the weight of the plates but said they were light enough for her to "move them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work". From descriptions of the plates' dimensions, had the plates been made of 24-karat gold (which Smith never claimed), they would have weighed about 140 pounds (64 kg). Based on the plates' lighter weight and Stowell's description of its corner's "greenish cast", one scholar has hypothesized Smith made the plates from copper, which weighs less than gold and rusts green. LDS writers have speculated the plates could also exhibit those qualities if it were made of a copper-gold alloy like Mesoamerican tumbaga. As far a Smith being a 'farm boy', he had a bad leg from an earlier operation than hindered him throughout his life. Bottom line, the plates are not available to see, which will always remain a mystery, however, given Smith's shady past, lies about his treasure hunting days, and lies about his 30-40 wives later in life, you seriously have to question the reliability of anything Smith says. Which is obviously very difficult for mormons to do.
@@johns1834 You seem pretty experienced in LDS history. I'll also say this, "gold rings" usually aren't 100% gold. I'd assume the same thing for gold plates, but they are a little bit harder because there aren't many of those in the world.
Also interesting, from Don Bradley, Joseph's hat was made of beaver skin and used like a veil with the seer stone. Parallels to Moses whose face shone and then put on a veil made of badger skin after obtaining stone tablets from the Lord.
He's very CAREFUL to say "OUR calendar " in North America. THAT is the perfect tell that he's - as an ACADEMIC - _invested_ in his _own_ theories , likely spoken often enough that a reversal could WELL be problematic . *"OUR"* , CALENDAR as Wayne May CLEARLY DESCRIBES as PART _OF_ "The Heartland Model" , is NOT THE RIGHT 13 month CALENDAR TO USE . _IF_ he were more familiar with an opposing point of view ( and he very WELL may BE ... ) , and WITH his _stated_ "loyalty_ to The Book of Mormon , he'd know that the need for a SECOND HILL CUMORAH look it up or check out Wayne May here on Y-T ) and the "Calendar" _in ACTUAL_ use , along WITH Non-LDS Work on the _various_ North America Model sites , would at LEAST offer far more compelling evidence than a lack of writing , which assertion _itself_ is not accurate. I _also_ note how quickly he stepped _away_ from the "writing" discussion , BEFORE showing SPECIFIC _EXAMPLES_ of the very Semitic Constructions he spent so much time on , earlier in the presentation . Oh well, the search for a FULL and honest voice continues ... .
I really enjoyed this interview with Brother Peterson. I only sort of disagree with him on the geography of the Book of Mormon. I say sort of, because I personally believe the Lamanites did live in Meso America. I also believe the Nephites lived in Northern America. And I’m sure they probably mixed and mingled at times. I think there’s enough evidence to prove both the Meso, and Heart Land theories. Another great person to have an interview with is Wayne May. He’s more of a Heart Lander, and he has a bunch of really old artifacts, and evidences to prove it’s at least a possibility.
I don't get too caught up in geography. I personally lean more towards mesoamerica, as I think the findings of large civilisations, highways, fortifications in the jungles of Guatemala align with the text as well as the volcanic activity and sunken cities discussed in 3rd Nephi before Jesus return and the climate. No snow discussed in BOM. I also believe the geography was limited to a smaller land mass and couldn't be hemispheric. But I'm open to migrations northward.
" I personally believe the Lamanites did live in Meso America. I also believe the Nephites lived in Northern America." LOL. So you believe they traveled thousands of miles to constantly wage war against each other for 1000 years? What is your evidence that either of them lived in either location?
@@mormonismwiththemurph "I personally lean more towards mesoamerica, as I think the findings of large civilisations, highways, fortifications in the jungles of Guatemala align with the text" Give us list of those large civilizations which haven't been identified as being Mayan, Toltec, Olmec, etc. If there was a "large civilization" in mesoamerica that was built by the Nephites, then there should be all sorts of Hebrew/Christian iconography all over it, right? As well as evidence of horses, the wheel, metal smelting, etc. The largest city in Pre-Columbian America was Tenochtitlan, at present-day Mexico city. Its population was 200k when the Spaniards arrived in 1521. The BOM states that 230,000 Nephites were slain by the Lamanites circa 400 AD. So, any area large enough to produce and house that great of a population would necessarily rival Tenochtitlan in size and majesty, except 1000 years earlier. Archaeologists have unearthed numerous large cities from the Mayan classic period which began around 300 AD. So, if the "Nephites" existed anywhere in Mesoamerica, the ruins of their civilization should be as obvious and as abundant as it is for Mayan or Aztec cultures.
@@randyjordan5521 did you know there is proof of long distance travel by the Cahokia people? Yip, white sand from Florida has been found in the mounds in Ohio. How did it get there if there wasn’t commerce, and travel. And why couldn’t they travel back and forth for war fair, during war time. We’ve only been on this continent since the 16 hundreds, and just look at how far and wide we’ve spread. They were here for 2,000 years, 1,500 years longer than us. There’s just a lot we don’t really know about what and how it all went down, but the evidence is out there. The most important things can’t be found anyway, and my testimony of the Book of Mormon is spiritual not archaeological.
I'm Jewish and when I read the Book of Mormon, there were so many Hebraic sounding phrases and ways of saying things that I felt it had to be true. So i joined the Church. Havent regretted it since. The only other possibility is that Joseph Smith didn't write it. And I think the evidence supports the "official story."
Cool story! I'm planning on studying many other religious texts in the future just so I'm not restraining myself to Christianity, hopefully I'm in the true church but you always have to look around you.
Duh, the Mayans did not have smelted metal technology. They used wooden clubs embedded with sharp stones in the heads. All of that talk in the Book of Mormon about "swords of finest steel" in ancient America is hogwash. There was no forged metalwork in the Americas until the Spaniards arrived in the 1500s.
If the gold plates never existed, how did Joseph get numerous witnesses to stand by their stories until their dying day, even when some of them later became angry with joseph and left the church? How could Joseph have known about the ancient cement technology in the first century B.C. in mesoamerica? How could Joseph Smith make up dozens of names in the Book of Mormon that would later be shown to be authentic semetic names? Where did Joseph get the idea of ancient scripture written on metal plates? How did Joseph Smith know about ancient practices regarding preservations of sacred texts? Why do other ancient documents support the Book of Mormons idea that ancient Joseph prophesied of Moses and Aaron? If there was no apostasy in the Church of Jesus Christ, then what happened to the prophets? At a time when all Christian churches taught that temples were no longer needed how did Joseph so effectively restore the ancient temple concept on his own? If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why are we the only ones with 12 apostles like it clearly was back then? Now for the fun part. Bible verses 😄 Ezekiel 37:16-17 talks about 2 "sticks" where Judah will write upon it and Joseph will write upon it. Why has nothing come up about what Joseph has written besides the book of mormon? It also says they will be joined together into one "stick" which is how we use the bible and BoM together. End of John 15 and beginning of John 16 it talks about how we will be hated for Christs name. However this could potentially be talking about all Christians in general which is true, But in our early church we were killed over it and it says that we will be killed over it. John 10:16 clearly talks about other people that he needs to bring the gospel to. (people of the BoM) Amos 3:7 talks about revelation but no "mormons" are crazy to think modern revelation can happen. 3 kingdoms of glory (plan of salvation) 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 Need for a restoration: Acts 3:19-21 Priesthood authority: Hebrews 5:4 (not scripture) but there was a study dont on the Book of Mormon using stylometry proving the BoM was written by multiple people and not one man. (Non LDS statistician that teamed up with BYU) Title:"On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship" Authors: John L. Hilton, et al. Published in: BYU Studies, Volume 30, number 3- Summer 1990 Bible verses that talk about works along with faith: James 2:14-26 Matthew 5:16 Mathew 7:21 Ephesians 2:10 Galatians 6:9-10 1 Corinthians 6:9 Revelation 14:13 Apostolic authority: Ephesians 2:19-20 Talks about us becoming Gods: John 10:34-36 2 Peter 1:4 1 John 3:2 John 17:20-21 Psalm 82 Ephesians 4:5 talks about how we should be one and not split off when we dislike what we heard (Not split off when we dislike something) Ephesians 2:20 talks about how his church will be built upon apostles and prophets with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Christ became exalted and wasn't always: Acts 2:30-33 Philippians 2:9 Acts 5:30-33 Luke 22:69 Mark 16:19 1 Peter 3:22 Ephesians 1:2 We can become like Christ: Romans 8:29-30 Revelation 3:21-22 Revelation 2:26-29 Psalm 82:1-8 John 10:32-35 Acts 17:29 Hebrews 12:9 Talks about preaching to the dead or baptisms for the dead: 1 Corinthians 15:29 1 Peter 3:18-20 1 Peter 4:5-6 Baptism is required: 1 Peter 3:21 Hebrews 11:32-40 states in verse 40 that they without us cannot be made perfect. Which means we can do work for the dead and they cant be made perfect and like Christ without us. Ezekiel 11:15-21 talks about how Israel will be scattered but will be gathered together. (who has more missionaries than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?) Jude 1:15 talks about how we will be judged for being ungodly Jude 1:18 talks about in the last days there will be mockers Jude 1:23 talks about how people will hate our idea of garments and mock us about it (yet garments are "CRAZY" to non LDS) Hebrews 7 talks about the Melchizedek Priesthood and how it is superior over the Aaronic priesthood (who has the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood?) Hebrews 7:4 mentions patriarch which we have Hebrews 7:5 talks about paying tithes (to my knowledge Catholics do as well) Hebrews 7:26 mentions the position of High Priest 1 Peter 1:3 talks about how Christ is Heavenly Fathers son (Godhead) Acts 7:55 "and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (somehow they are the same person!!) Isaiah 2:2-3 talks about how the Lords house will be built in the top of the mountains. Utah literally means "people of the mountains". That is where our church headquarters is and where the main temple (which is the house of the Lord) is. Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts." "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." This prophesy was fulfilled April 3, 1836, when Elijah the prophet did come suddenly to the temple in Kirtland, Ohio, and bestowed the sealing keys of the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Acts 3:22 says how "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." (sounds like he will raise up a prophet to me) Amos 8:11-12 talks about how there will be a famine in the land, but not a famine of bread or thirst but of the words of the Lord and anybody who seeks or searches for it will not find it. (pretty sure a restoration is needed then!!) Revelation 16:15 "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame" Sounds like a need for garments in the last days for me. Revelation 22:16 (which is prophesy for the last days!!) "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." An angel will come and testify!!!! (MORONI) Restoration: Isaiah 11:11-12 Daniel 2:34-35, 44 Malachi 3: 1-3 Acts: 3:20-25 If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why does no other church have the seventy besides LDS? Exodus 24:1,9 Numbers 11:16 Luke 10:1.17 Joel 2:28 says that a young man will see a vision (first vision!!) James 5:14-15 talks about Elders and how they will give blessings with oil (We do that!!) 😄😄😄
by arguing that joseph could not have produced the book of mormon on his own, Dan assumes a false dichotomy: either Joseph produced the book of mormon on his own or he did it using the gift and power of God. I'd like to know what evidence Dan has that demonstrates joseph did not have help from co-conspirators? After all, conspiracy is a far more likely explanation than seer stones, white native american angels, golden plates, reformed egyptian... etc.
I think the diction process completely destroys any notion of co-conspirator explanation. The Book of Mormon was dictated over the course of about 90 days. In order to memorize the kind of information required to be dictated would be extremely difficult, especially since we have contemporary statements that he didn't have a manuscript or the time to go off on his own to memorize new passages.
It's the idea of the unexplained explaining the unexplained instead of considering more plausible and likely scenarios. I once was convinced I saw a ghost as a kid... I stared at it for what I thought was hours. It was white like a ghost, moved and hovered like a ghost, and was there when I repeatedly tried to close my eyes and make it disappear. The unexplained phenomenon of a ghost certainly fit the description of a seemingly unexplained sighting. After I gained enough courage, I crawled over to the ghost to learn that it was my cousins dress on a hanger on a door know being moved by the register vent. Do we know all of the details on how Joseph Smith produced the BoM; certainly not. However, that doesn't mean it has to be God who was behind it.
@@blainehowes that is certainly the apologetic argument, but this narrative doesn't definitively rule out conspiracy. how do we know that Joseph's scribes were not part of the conspiracy? and why is divine intervention a better explanation?
@@blainehowes I suggest you research the phenomenon of automatic writing. One of the most notorious example is a book called The Chronicle of Cleophas. The author, Geraldine Cummins reportedly wrote thousands of words an hour without notes or prior information to what she was writing.
@@jaybravo2199 precisely! If one's eternal fate relies heavily on this narrative being true, we owe it to ourselves to definitively rule out all other likely explanations.
I do not have the time to listen 2h to something. can me someone please name the top3 arguments pro BoM because I unfortunetly tend to not believe in it as a historical book just because of evidences - and it would be nice to be wrong but my expectations are low.
It's hard to name the top 3) For me I'd say 1) The old world geography parallels and Lehis travel through the Arabian desert and the locations and route they go on corresponding with the incense trail. Burying Ishmael at a place called Nahom. At inscription found in Yemen saying nhm ( no vowels in sametic languages) it being a burial site, and them travelling eastward to a place they called Bountiful which latches extremely well with a location khor karfot. A coastal oasis with timber, ore, mountain, honey etc. 2) Ancient sametic names in the bom e.g - Jershon, Nephi, Pahron, Pacumeni, Sam, Ammon etc. 3) BOM complexity- 600 internal consistent geographical locations, hundreds of characters, plot lines, Ether 1 lists 30 Kings and then speaks about each in reverse order, complex chiasmus like Alma 36 and Hebraisms, which are ancient Hebrew literary elements. I also think the combined testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses of the gold plates.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I tend to find these the weakest points of argument for the historicity of the book of Mormon... 1) There is zero evidence of a family ofJews building a ship to sail from the Red Sea all the way to North America. This task would be absurdly complex and difficult for a few families to complete. Furthermore, there is less than zero evidence that a thousand years before that Jews built submarines and successfully floated to North America. 2) A handful of names, discovered and or recycled a thousand years later by judeo Christians... This is not impressive. 3) BoM complexity... Yes, if one accepts the faithful Mormon narrative that Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon in a roughly 70 day span that is impressive. However, Joseph had years to work on the story... He had already dictated the Nephi/Lehi story to Martin Harris once, a good portion of that was the Lehi dream which his father had recounted to the family years before. A contextual analysis of the BoM shows that it's content is tightly tied with the KJV version of the Bible... IE, Isaiah. Couple with this, the other writings in the burned over district of upstate New York with other pastors, be clear 18th century Methodist influence on the doctrine of the book of Mormon... It becomes a lot clearer that the book of Mormon is a product of its time and not an ancient document. Every notable theologian or historian who read the book of Mormon dismiss it as Bible fanfiction - only church members manufacture evidence for its authenticity.
@@ozymandias6743 Less than a thousand years? You might want to reread the book of the Ether. Closer to 2000 years. And the ships described are not submarines.
First of all do you want to believe do you want what is contained within this theological construct then you apply faith study seeking understanding if on the other hand you don't then no amount of evidence or discussion is going to change that whether that's the Bible, Book of Mormon,Koran or relationships, politics,or science based theory
"evidence is that he never went back and looked at what he had dictated"??? That "evidence" is the Story/Narrative told by those close to the creation of The Book of Mormon. We have to trust them.
In the Chat Brett you said that Puritan ideas were not prevalent in NY. What is the point of that? Just because it wasn't prevalent doesn't mean he wasn't exposed to it. Good example of that is Mormonism isn't common or prevalent now in the world let alone NY, doesn't mean people don't know about it. And I would argue the JS was a big fan of the uncommon stuff and I am willing to bet he even searched it out.
As a poor farmer largely engaged in manual labor, I wouldn't suppose he had time. He didn't read many books, nor was he a member of the library in his town.
It is a matter of likelyhood. Your assertion was that Hebrew was commonly studied, thus explaining Joseph's access. I countered that I could not find reports of it being studied in that time and place. You then brought up the Puritans as a counter. I just noted that whatever may or may not have been common among the Puritans would not be relevant outside of where they had influence. I have looked into the common educational models of 19th century America, I have found no mention of Hebrew, rare mention of Greek, and even Latin being unusual. While the wealthy had access to private schools in which German, French, and Latin were taught, that is not what rural schools that the Smiths had access to taught. Not even Hyrum's charity school covered any languages beyond English according the documents I could find.
Also, Dan's "would the Lord give proof" arguments annoy me because he holds that position because, supposedly, this would protect my agency, but I would contend that, if the Lord is able to provide proof and does not, then he is actually limiting my agency because I lack the information necessary to make an informed and complete decision.
And The Major Problem..... The Messenger...Joseph Smith. His early and ongoing Lies and Frauds via moneydigging....His predation on Young Girls.... His Felonies in banking....destruction of a Free Press...etc Can't imagine Christ using a guy with that background and lifestyle.
Before I joined the Church I would read anti-literature. Frankly, they have become tedious and I just don't have time for them. There are better things I can do with my time.
The anti-literature cult doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One by the name of Paul Gregersen debunked the arrogant Egyptologist assessments against Joseph Smith. Paul demonstrates that Joseph Smith was right, the arrogant Egyptologists were wrong. The anti literature cult will not admit it though.
Nephites could join the Lamanites by dyeing their skin. Do you think if I dyed my skin, I would suddenly be accepted as a black man? I would suddenly be accepted by other people who dyed their skin. The Mayans dyed their skin.
Appreciate Dan's perspective but gonna have to disagree with the Mesoamerican point. Migrating animals are in North America, not south. Yes, snakes are found in what we'd consider the south, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. The Mesoamerican carbon dating is far outside that of the Nephite timelines, and as far as Teancum being killed during the new year when it's hot, that's not according to our calendar, but the Biblical calendar which you can learn about in the Old Testament, Abib being the first month in which is the Passover, which we know as Easter, which happens in April, which is spring and in which there can be hot days. (Abib-April) Also, the Mesoamerican "temples" violate the law of Moses, specifically that law where is states: "Exodus 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon." All their temples have stairs, steps, but in the North American models, the temple plots you can see that they used ramps which would be in accordance with the law of Moses. And of course the specific DNA matches of the North American tribes with the Hebrews to whom Joseph sent Parley Pratt, Ziba Peterson and others to deliver the record of their ancestors as commanded of the Lord. It wasn't to tribes in South America. These are just a few examples.
Have you ever considered that Joseph was just a very intelligent and clever individual? The pace and accuracy at which a book is written isn’t proof that the content came from God. The argument that a “farm boy” couldn’t do it is so outdated. We know that there are very intelligent individuals in our world that can do amazing things that most can’t.
View of the Hebrews is an 1823 book written by Ethan Smith, a Congregationalist minister in Vermont who argued that Native Americans were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel a relatively common view during the early nineteenth century The book of Mormon was published in 1930 I agree with you 💯👍 we now know from DNA evidence 🧬 that this view has no basis in truth
In total approximately 30 percent of the Book of Isaiah is quoted in the Book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon which are quoted from Isaiah The Book of Mormon also quotes from the KJV and the way of the Hebrews and other books
The one thing none of these people explain is how you should know it was from God and not demons, especially given that he was using some magical seeing stone, especially since scrying is explicitly forbidden this is not anything that you would find elsewhere in the Bible, and in fact it is strictly prohibited. Could certainly have given him all of his information just as easily, and that would not only explain the knowledge, explain why he was doing something forbidden in scripture, it went perfectly fit with what is known about the modus operandi of leading people astray.
The One Word never mentioned.... "CONSPIRACY".... 11 Witnesses 9 of whom were Family Members....could easily be part of an effort to create The New Church....or at least a new Book to address a topic, much discussed, of interest to The Masses...origin of The Indians.
What I found to be consistent with cultish views is the lack of references to the scriptures. God’s Word is Truth and so it should be used to justify or dismiss theological arguments. Here’s one case that would refute Mormonism; ““I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9 ESV God says in His Word that the Gospel given to the church in the first century (saved by faith alone, not of works) that any other “gospels” are false.
@@caseycosgriff The Word of God does not change because God does not change. - Numbers 23:19 - "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” For scripture to not be consistent throughout all times, even in eternity, it would show that it is not divinely inspired. But seriously, if a person came to you saying they spoke to an angel that told them new revelations in a cave or in the woods, you’d be suspicious. If they showed signs and wonders to confirm this “new teaching”.. You could then point them to one Bible verse that warns against relying solely on signs and wonders as evidence of true faith - Matthew 24:24, where Jesus says, "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." In this passage, Jesus is cautioning His followers to be wary of those who claim to be messiahs or prophets and who perform miraculous signs and wonders, because these signs alone are not sufficient evidence of true faith or divine authority. Rather, Jesus emphasizes the importance of discernment. Hence Paul’s repeated warning in Galatians to not entertain false Gospels as they bring a curse. Regardless of the claims of Mormonism with signs and wonders and all, it’s false because it presents a gospel of faith + works which is not the true Gospel that Paul preached to the early church. Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." Romans 3:28 - "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Titus 3:5 - "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." Just quoting scripture here, not my opinions. But please, quote me back scripture to justify your position.
I have been all over in Mesoamerica and so far haven't run into any bodies. Just Americans with sunburned legs and mosquito bites struggling up pyramid steps.
I will debate any critic. Critics are weak minded people. They have no foundation to stand on. They just throw stones. Ask them, okay, then to who should I go for truth, and they have nothing. At least not anything bullet proof like they suppose it should be.
@@randyjordan5521 Here's how debates go -- those who believe candidate/proponent A end up beliving candidate/proponent A, while those who support the other person believe their person held his own or won the debate.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I just feel not mentioning they are family members, is leaving out information. Having 8 physical witnesses is only useful if they are non bias and have nothing to gain. I just feel that because it is only family members that physically saw the plates, and the scribes only spiritually did, it loses a bit of credibility…
The calendar year for the Nephites started in what is now April, I believe. Maybe Mr Peterson should reread Alma 62 a little more carefully as well because it doesn’t mention the “heat” as he suggested. Also, there are plenty of snakes in the Midwest.
Thank you for the Interview... however Dan Peterson, at least in this interview, has shown himself to be an apologist who relies on disavowed evidences and conjecture. He has done himself and his advanced degrees a huge disservice.
@@GrassrootsLibertyBillFoster ... are you asking for me to provide evidences towards Dan Peterson's conjecture and use of disavowed evidences? I don't know what you are saying.
Dude, conjecture is a tool used almost anywhere when artifacts and details are scarce. It's completely valid to explore possibilities as Dan does. If you ask the most reputable critics of the Book of Mormon how JS produced the BOM they can ONLY provide conjecture.
@@mruss31415 Where Dan goes wrong is when he continues to side with conjecture when scientific observations and discoveries continue to push BoM apologetics further into the realm of possible versus probable. Conjecture is fine when trying to figure something out... it becomes problematic when denial is fueling conjecture. Uncontrolled conjecture is how one begins to use the unexplained to explain the unexplained. So, an angel of a deceased Native American prophet taught Joesph Smith over the course of years about a book he was to translate using the same method he used to earn money digging for imaginary treasure. The procurement of the BoM (date it was taken, what he was to bring with him, etc...) closely resembled the practices of frontier magic. The contents of the BoM were less peculiar as they are now when it was written... it was a popular theory of JS time to associate Native Americans with ancient Israelite ancestors as several books from JS's time were written detailing similar ideas. Taking a look at the ideas the BoM presented and how they closely resembled what Hyrum learned years earlier from Dartmouth. The several anachronisms included in the BoM including a damning deutero Isaiah. Joseph Smith several now problematic statements about early BoM people which were once considered Doctrine but now disavowed as mere opinions. The "translations" considered canon of Joseph Smith which we do have source records show that Joseph Smith's translation ability was something different than traditional translating.... the list can go on... The point being, Dan's conjecture relies on possibilities in the face of probabilities. It comes down to something called the preponderance of evidence... everything must be viewed together. One piece of conjecture must not undo another piece of conjecture, otherwise one or both pieces of conjecture are wrong. Dan's conjecture explaining for example how Meso-America is the only place where the BoM could have happened because that is the only place where Native Americans had a writing system. This conjecture flies in the face of early prophetic utterances from Joseph Smith when he found Nephite altars and skeletal remains of ancient Laminate warriors. Or conjecture about Jaredites coming to ancient American to intermingle with existing peoples even though the Jaredites were fleeing the mythical Tower of Babel in which it is told that peoples languages were confused so that no-one spoke the ancient language of Adam anymore. So a tl;dr, healthy conjecture should always fade away as fact and knowledge come forward... Dan Peterson fails in that regard.
Well, don’t be so sure on the Mesoamerica postulation based on the “Panama” being the division North-South. The BOM says it was 1.5 days travel from one sea to the other to a Nephite. The shortest route in Central America (in Panama) would take days to cross, so it can’t be that that Mormon is referring to. Keep in mind that Israelites call large bodies of water, like the Great Lakes, seas.
It is only 38 miles across Panama, not that difficult to do in 1.5 days. Also, the description said it was primarily on a "line" which is indicative of a river in Egyptian, so it could have been much wider than someone could have jogged/walked in a day and a half.
@@randyjordan5521 Average walking speed is 3 mph, so 13 hours walking should do it. As a geologist I have walked/hiked that far in 16 hours in mountainous terrain. And I am sure ancient peoples who walked all the time everywhere they went were in much better shape than me.
But if the book of mormon is not the word of god why the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints have been progressive and why the protestant they we're the same I mean they are still have nothing progress 💕
So you're saying it could have been a bad angel? That makes sense a bad angel would tell Joseph to translate a record all about Christ, doing good, repenting, keeping the commandments and not following satan...
@@mormonismwiththemurph well the devil is very cunning you see. He will tell 10 truths just to tell one lie. So yes it may see mostly good, but really what he was after was to get people to believe in the other false beliefs in Mormonism. Temples, excessive tithing, polygamy, curse of Cain, etc. I don’t actually believe any of this, but if you are playing in this magical world view not sure how you rule this scenario out.
Temples are important to the old and New Testament, tithing is 10% just like the NT, prophets like prophets of old, baptisms by immersion, polygamy when God ordains it like in the OT…appears it is what it says to be A Restoration Gospel.
@@wendyfoster5579 sorry I took some shortcuts in my reply and was not very clear. Here is what I really meant by the examples I gave Temples - meaning the endowment ceremony, penalties, covenanting to give everything to the church, woman covenanting to the “law of their husbands” etc. Excessive tithing - really what I was getting at is the massive hoard of cash that the church has but does very little unconditional aid (relative to their net worth) to feed and help the poor. This type of behavior is not supported by the NT. (Unconditional aid meaning you don’t have to do anything to qualify for it. Making people pay tithing in order to get help can hardly be considered charity!) Polygamy- if you take a closer look at the OT it never said god commanded or ordained it. Philosophies and of men mingled with scripture yet again! Curse of Cain - I don’t thing you addressed this one but it seems like a point against having prophets like old. God never bothered to tell them this was false doctrine until there was such intense societal pressure. Prophetic foresight indeed! So you see Wendy the great deceiver is quite clever. There is enough truth mixed in to get you to go along, but once to take a closer look it does not hold water.
@@Rcplanecrasher MANY WIVES: I took a closer look at the OT and it says the prophet Nathan had confronted David about the killing of Uriah and the sin of adultery against Bathsheba and then reminded David that God was the one who had made David King of Israel and had also given David all of his wives except in the case of Bathsheba whom David had taken for himself without God's permission, so it was a law of God that David had already been living under given to him from God concerning all his other wives which were lawful for him to take otherwise God would not allow him to have any of those wives if they were not part of his law. So David had kept the law that's why he had many wives. Temples - meaning the endowment ceremony, penalties, covenanting to give everything to the church, woman covenanting to the “law of their husbands” etc. I see no problem with what is required in living the temple saint life because that's in line with the following principle of the gospel taught by Jesus in the Bible: 'Where much is given, much is also required...'. Yes the giving of Much is a gospel principle taught by Jesus in the Bible, to sacrifice all in order to follow him as he had asked of the Young Rich Man for all the Disciples of Jesus went up into the temple daily AFTER CHRIST was Crucified. TITHING: Is not an evil thing for the Lord to save up his own money for his own purposes in the Church, the Lord gave a parable in Matthew 20 about those who murmur about what he chooses to do with his own money. [10] But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. [11] And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, [12] Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. [13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? [14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. [15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? Matthew Chapter 20 So you can't complain to the Lord about what he does with his own money
That is just both untrue and irrelevant. The issue is the quality of evidence and arguments; not the number of secular scholars that agree. At one time the scholarly world taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Truth is not determined by vote.
@@blakeostler8965 Truth is also not determined by special feelings. Faith is supposed to be the belief in things not seen, not a belief in things despite what is seen. The scholarly world changed when scientific observation was applied to their methodology... it was the religious world which persisted in the belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe. I'm glad you used this example because it is a great parallel to what Dan Peterson and similar BoM apologists are doing. They are sticking to their outdated and largely disavowed beliefs while the scientific community is moving on with their knowledge of alleged BoM lands.
@@blakeostler8965 I would love to see him actually debate someone with views that do not align with his preconceived notions and biases. His apologetics are old and tired. Quite simply, even if everything about the Book of Mormon were true, sixty-to 70% of the people who once believed in it still think the church is not a healthy place for them.This would speak more about the culture than the truth claims, which are dubious at best.
current sophisticates are just as cancellable as any of the "ists" of prior times... a silver lining of wokism is making bare how instantly anyone can be made "and offender for a word"
I’m a huge Dan Peterson fan. Thanks for having him on your channel!
Thanks for watching!
Can you ask Peterson to debate Christian Prince about Islam?
I read the Book of Mormon about 2 years before I was baptized and was impressed with the doctrine displayed. I was reading it a second time about a year after I was baptized and one Saturday morning at UNC friend came by and showed me a copy of a letter that Joseph wrote to Emma. I could not read the letter. It did not even look like English. I looked at the letter then picked up my Book of Mormon and pondered how a boy who not write a letter could write a book so complex as the Book of Mormon. Then I thought wait he translated it, he didn’t write it. At that moment I knew Joseph was a prophet and the Book of Mormon was revealed scripture. My intellectual testimony was transmuted to a spiritual testimony as the spirit spoke strongly to me. That was 53 years ago and life has been very good because of my association with the saints.
Thanks for sharing that
Compare that letter with the First Edition Book of Mormon. Not the modern edition which has been grammatically enhanced no less than 10 editions by subsequent proof readers. Take into consideration as well that Joseph’s oral recitations were transcribed by educated men who often altered the words as originally offered by Joseph. You can see the changes on the original drafts
What letter are you referring to?
@@MeatGoblin88 long time ago but it was just a copy of a letter. I do not know how my friend came to be in possession of it. It took several minutes to see Emma’s name and Joseph’s name at the signature space. The body of the letter needed a better scholarship than mine to figure out the context.
My wife and I are getting sealed the 22nd of July. I have been wrestling with my doubts. This lifted those from me. Thank the Lord I found this. And thank you both for the video.
I'm glad it helped, all the best for your sealing :)
Don’t worry,you will see these doubts coming back every time you honestly enquire the truth. I left after 23 years.
I suggest you to take a look of these Book of Mormon evidences:
ua-cam.com/video/iUn4RTei4pc/v-deo.html
Book of Mormon has nothing to do with The Temple content developed by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young came up with. The Problem is the timing of Joseph being exposed to Masonry and within weeks "getting revelation" about the temple content. Problem...same handshakes....passwords...goofy clothing... A direct lift from Masonry into Mormonism. Joseph apparently thought Masonry went back to ancient times. The Church NOW says it recognizes Masonry only goes back to medieval times.
Just curious. What did you decide?
Dan Peterson doesn't disappoint! Particularly powerful discussion on the witnesses, Nhm, Semitic/Hebraisms, and the importance of faith first.
Dan did such a great job that everyone in my neighborhood is getting baptized this weekend!
Lol, just kidding
@@nathanbigler Mormons LOVE Dan's scholarship. Saves them time, plus they like the information given to them that is "faith-affirming". Listening to Dan use weasel words gives me a burning in my bosom.
@@sdfotodude Then does Dan Vogel's faith-denying scholarship give you indigestion?
@@nathanbigler On the Mexican Riviera?
@@caseycosgriff nope. Any faith that cannot stand criticism about its truth claims isn't a true church
Murph and Dan, thank you a wonderful and enlightening discussion. It's appreciated.
Thank you
@@mormonismwiththemurph
You can spend literally YEARS being caught up in digging a rabbit hole on any simple principle of the Gospel and take something thats simple and make it much more complex than what it should be. But we have been told to live the principles of the gospel that the Book of Mormon teaches so we may be ready when the Savior returns. We are not told to take the book and then pull everything all apart in it and pull the prophet's life all apart and to cross-examine everything in the Church for it would take YEARS examining through all of this stuff. Well we don't have the time to do all that.
It's just amazing that I was just listening to the Book of Mormon audio download before seeing this podcast. I heard English that seems strange in it's grammar and other things that would cause doubts to anyone who does not have the witness by the Spirit. It's so wonderful that Joseph dictated what the writers have written concerning it's coming forth that " if there are mistakes they are the mistakes of men". Some of the main writers have seen our day and knew that we will have questions about the literary form of the book. I believe God intended that the weaknesses or human èrr of the ancient prophets would be included to develop our faith. I begin to become less concerned about its literary superiority because the doctrines in this great and marvelous work are of eternal truths. It makes the veil between heaven and earth thinner. They are melodies that are familiar which have been taken away, songs I've heard before.
I don't understand. So you know something is true because you "have the witness of the Spirit," but a book that purports to have been written in the witness of the Spirit by someone who claimed to be a prophet with access to the witness of the Spirit may contain errors, and these errors may be discerned by other people who have the witness of the Spirit. Gosh but that sounds like a circular argument.
@@joeoleary9010 LOL Not to mention the fact that "the most correct book on earth" had to be corrected by the typesetter because the manuscript was so bad, and then the second edition had numerous corrections as well---almost 4,000 in total.
@@randyjordan5521 If the gold plates never existed, how did Joseph get numerous witnesses to stand by their stories until their dying day, even when some of them later became angry with joseph and left the church?
How could Joseph have known about the ancient cement technology in the first century B.C. in mesoamerica?
How could Joseph Smith make up dozens of names in the Book of Mormon that would later be shown to be authentic semetic names?
Where did Joseph get the idea of ancient scripture written on metal plates?
How did Joseph Smith know about ancient practices regarding preservations of sacred texts?
Why do other ancient documents support the Book of Mormons idea that ancient Joseph prophesied of Moses and Aaron?
If there was no apostasy in the Church of Jesus Christ, then what happened to the prophets?
At a time when all Christian churches taught that temples were no longer needed how did Joseph so effectively restore the ancient temple concept on his own?
If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why are we the only ones with 12 apostles like it clearly was back then?
Now for the fun part. Bible verses
😄
Ezekiel 37:16-17 talks about 2 "sticks" where Judah will write upon it and Joseph will write upon it. Why has nothing come up about what Joseph has written besides the book of mormon? It also says they will be joined together into one "stick" which is how we use the bible and BoM together.
End of John 15 and beginning of John 16 it talks about how we will be hated for Christs name. However this could potentially be talking about all Christians in general which is true, But in our early church we were killed over it and it says that we will be killed over it.
John 10:16 clearly talks about other people that he needs to bring the gospel to. (people of the BoM)
Amos 3:7 talks about revelation but no "mormons" are crazy to think modern revelation can happen.
3 kingdoms of glory (plan of salvation) 1 Corinthians 15:40-42
Need for a restoration: Acts 3:19-21
Priesthood authority: Hebrews 5:4
(not scripture) but there was a study dont on the Book of Mormon using stylometry proving the BoM was written by multiple people and not one man. (Non LDS statistician that teamed up with BYU)
Title:"On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship"
Authors: John L. Hilton, et al.
Published in: BYU Studies, Volume 30, number 3- Summer 1990
Bible verses that talk about works along with faith:
James 2:14-26
Matthew 5:16
Mathew 7:21
Ephesians 2:10
Galatians 6:9-10
1 Corinthians 6:9
Revelation 14:13
Apostolic authority: Ephesians 2:19-20
Talks about us becoming Gods:
John 10:34-36
2 Peter 1:4
1 John 3:2
John 17:20-21
Psalm 82
Ephesians 4:5 talks about how we should be one and not split off when we dislike what we heard (mainly for baptists who make new denominations since catholics are under one)
Ephesians 2:20 talks about how his church will be built upon apostles and prophets with Christ being the chief cornerstone. You got aposltes?
Christ became exalted and wasn't always:
Acts 2:30-33
Philippians 2:9
Acts 5:30-33
Luke 22:69
Mark 16:19
1 Peter 3:22
Ephesians 1:2
We can become like Christ:
Romans 8:29-30
Revelation 3:21-22
Revelation 2:26-29
Psalm 82:1-8
John 10:32-35
Acts 17:29
Hebrews 12:9
Talks about preaching to the dead or baptisms for the dead:
1 Corinthians 15:29
1 Peter 3:18-20
1 Peter 4:5-6
Baptism is required: 1 Peter 3:21
Hebrews 11:32-40 states in verse 40 that they without us cannot be made perfect. Which means we can do work for the dead and they cant be made perfect and like Christ without us.
Ezekiel 11:15-21 talks about how Israel will be scattered but will be gathered together. (who has more missionaries than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?)
Jude 1:15 talks about how we will be judged for being ungodly
Jude 1:18 talks about in the last days there will be mockers
Jude 1:23 talks about how people will hate our idea of garments and mock us about it (yet garments are "CRAZY" to non LDS)
Hebrews 7 talks about the Melchizedek Priesthood and how it is superior over the Aaronic priesthood (who has the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood?)
Hebrews 7:4 mentions patriarch which we have
Hebrews 7:5 talks about paying tithes (to my knowledge Catholics do as well)
Hebrews 7:26 mentions the position of High Priest
1 Peter 1:3 talks about how Christ is Heavenly Fathers son (Godhead)
Acts 7:55 "and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (somehow they are the same person!!)
Isaiah 2:2-3 talks about how the Lords house will be built in the top of the mountains. Utah literally means "people of the mountains". That is where our church headquarters is and where the main temple (which is the house of the Lord) is.
Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6:
"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly comee to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
This prophesy was fulfilled April 3, 1836, when Elijah the prophet did come suddenly to the temple in Kirtland, Ohio, and besowed the sealing keys of the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
Acts 3:22 says how "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." (sounds like he will raise up a prophet to me)
Amos 8:11-12 talks about how there will be a famine in the land, but not a famine of bread or thirst but of the words of the Lord and anybody who seeks or searches for it will not find it. (pretty sure a restoration is needed then!!)
Revelation 16:15
"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame"
Sounds like a need for garments in the last days for me.
Revelation 22:16 (which is prophesy for the last days!!)
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
An angel will come and testify!!!! (MORONI)
Restoration:
Isaiah 11:11-12
Daniel 2:34-35, 44
Malachi 3: 1-3
Acts: 3:20-25
If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why does no other church have the seventy besides LDS?
Exodus 24:1,9
Numbers 11:16
Luke 10:1.17
Joel 2:28 says that a young man will see a vision (first vision!!)
James 5:14-15 talks about Elders and how they will give blessings with oil (We do that!!)
😄😄😄
Dan Petersen and Truman Madsen brought me into The Restoration !
I devoured Fam Petersen and Truman Madsen content along with FARMS and FairMormon for years. It wasn’t until I trusted that The Truth should be able to stand scrutiny and dared to read the “rest of the story”. The only way to get balanced information about the church and it’s happenings is to go find all the info that’s been suppressed and held back from the membership, believing that the membership could not handle the Truth. 🤦♀️ Such a disappointing finding that they didn’t trust the membership to search, ponder and pray and use their own ability to come to truth for themselves. The only way out of circular reasoning is the breaking of the closed loop circuit and plug into a network to reach more balanced and honest information.
Truman Madsen is fantastic I love that 8 part lecture series on Joseph Smith
Yes! Together they are a force of knowledge and faith!
39:40 If I recall Joseph had also picked up a sudden urge to be baptized from reading about it in the Book of Mormon as the subject appeared. Strange for Joseph to become inspired by and motivated into action from parts of a book he should already be familiar with in advance, if he supposedly authored it. (Edit: Joseph Smith-History 1:67-68)
I don't recall hearing about any "sudden urge to be baptized", in line with the dictation of the BOM, but I'd have some questions/comments about that, if you'd care to have a dialog. 1) Your observation, if correct, would be in line with "A" leading to "B", but it is also in line with "B" leading to "A", or even "C" leading to both "A" and "B". That is, perhaps JS dictated the parts about baptism *because* he had a sudden interest in it; or perhaps he had just heard/read some discussion about baptism and decided to write it into the BOM *and also* become interested in being baptized at the same time. 2) Why would JS have an urge to be baptized by someone when God had already told him that all Christian churches were in apostasy? It would be like you going to the Jehovah's Witnesses to be baptized, when you think they're a false belief. If your observation is correct, it would actually undermine the claims of the veracity of the FV.
@@toy-bomtheoneyearbookofmor6174I think one such source might be Joseph Smith-History 1:67-68. 1) My observation was under an assumption if JS authored the BOM, he ideally already wrote in its entirety, not writing such a complex work on the fly which seems too difficult. Only when the translation reached a part about baptism in the BOM did he also become interested in being baptized. It's just a small example of a pattern of multiple seemingly first-time reactions to the content of BOM. If these are just pretenses, they never seem to drop. 2) Nonsense, the urge lead to an enquiry with Lord followed a visit from a resurrected John the Baptist, not joining another church. And I suppose in a case he had, did Peter by separating himself from the Gentiles at Antioch undermine his vision of the unclean animals?
@@treystone9464, you said, "My observation was under an assumption if JS authored the BOM, he ideally already wrote in its entirety, not writing such a complex work on the fly which seems too difficult."
My assumption is quite different. I assume that JS had the "bones" or the overall story of the BOM in mind before he started dictating, but he filled in details along the way. The BOM isn't actually very complex at all. Almost all of it is very linear.
I find many parts of it are consistent with extemporaneous oral dictation (one example of many is Alma 24:19, "...and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.").
Further, if JS had had it all written down already, why would he need to dictate it to have it be written down?
And, if he had it all written down to start with, why couldn't he reproduce the lost 116 pages by simply rereading it?
@@toy-bomtheoneyearbookofmor6174 The presence of intentional Chiasmus would seem to dictate that every line had to be planned out in advance by someone. Not on the fly. There is a complex timeline too. Its a masterpiece without considering how short a time it was produced. If I were to think JS were the author, I'd have think it had been worked on for years prior to dictation, so he shouldn't be moved by his own work if he wrote it a long time ago. The scribing, the surprises, every detail is all pretense if he is the author. Or he's not the author and he is surprised, which I think is the case. If you insist it's a fiction, I must insist its a multiyear work of a ghostwriter not a two-month work of Joseph Jr.
@toy-bomtheoneyearbookofmor6174 so do you think someone like steven king could have the framework, or bones, of a story in his brain, and then sit down with a stranger and dictate the whole novel in 3 months without ever going back and reworking the story? And he's one of the most prolific writers of all time.
These two episodes with Dan are fantastic. Great job, Murph!
Thank you! 😊
I never pay attention to critics of the BoM. I read it intensely when I was called to be Gospel Doctrine class teacher when I was 21 yrs old. I received a spiritual witness after six months of study. I need no other witness.
YA I got the same confirmation after watching DUMBO
@@stevenhenderson9005You received at spiritual witnesses of the BOM after watching DUMBO. I didn't realize it was such a faith promoting moive.
The followers of Warren Jeffs have had just as strong of a witness of the spirit to confirm their beliefs as you did to confirm yours.
@@ethanevensen3752 Sure, anything that teaches lessons the induces the goodness of mankind is faith promoting and can lead to the divine regardless of the story being real or fictional.
The difference between DUMBO and the BOM is that DUMBO is based on a true story and the BOM is fictional.
@@randyjordan5521 Oh wow. Someone figured it out. You are my new prophet. Please show me to your bulletproof paradigm of truth. Waiting with bells on.
It’s interesting that we today are so bothered by changes made to restorative scriptures when in JS’s days they were very aware of these changes being made via versions etc.. Another problem with our presentism and lack of historical understanding that we still are troubled by these old issues.
Yeah that's true, and our fundamentalist views of scriptures that it can't be edited or revised.
@@mormonismwiththemurph According to several Jewish scholars, the Hebrew concept of a Prophet was more about reinterpreting past scriptures than predicting the future. They claim that Christian tend to conflate the Greek view of Oracles with the Hebrew view of Prophets. Jews see prophetic renegotiation of scripture happening constantly within the page of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The concept of static scripture really does not show even in Christianity until after the Protestant Reformation.
Great video! Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, it was accurate, valid, and on point to the Book's narrative! Well done gentlemen!
The Book of Mormon is another volume of scripture, that testifies of Jesus Christ and His gospel. That's the message of the Book, and it's true! Among the writings of that message, are descriptions of where and when it took place.
The Church's main focus and mission is to proclaim and teach the Gospel of Christ; the Book of Mormon & Biblical geography are not topics the Church dwells on, thus many latter-day saints are unaware Joseph precisely claimed and declared Zarahemla was in Central America. Joseph was most intuned and familiar with the Book, he translated it, had visitations from its prophets, had visions of its people, cities, and cultures; Joseph is the expert on the Book.
The actual first published claim of a Central America setting for Zarahemla & Bountiful (aka Mesoamerica): was from Joseph Smith and Apostles John Taylor & Wilford Woodruff who unitedly as editors, first claimed and published an 'important fact' in the Church's paper The Times and Seasons on October 1, 1842, declaring Zarahemla was in Central America, within the borders of Guatemala; they went on to clarify they weren't declaring or naming a specific ruin as the exact location of Zarahemla within Guatemala, only that Zarahemla was within the area of Guatemala borders (as known to them at the time). To substantiate the claim and declaration, Joseph, being very familiar with the details of the BOM, quotes Alma 22 describing the region where Zarahemla was. There's no hearsay about it; true story look it up; we have the publication, it's real. The Church has never refuted the publication or claim. The Church's current statement on BOM geography verifies Joseph as editor during the publications relating to BOM geography in 1842. It also says Joseph stated and believed there was Book of Mormon evidence in both North and Central America; both are on this continent as the Book calls it. This cannot be discounted away, it's a fact in the history books.
The T&S editorial is simply wonderful, notice how the editors clarify the city of Zarahemla, as the one burnt at the time of the Lord's crucifixion; why would they need to specify the one burnt at the Savior's crucifixion; isn't there only one Zarahemla? Because, they knew there was another current city, with the name of Zarahemla, developed by the Latter-day Saints across the river from Nauvoo. Joseph, John, & Wilford wanted to clarify so no one was confused by the two different cities with the name of Zarahemla. No need for speculation, Joseph clears it all up in the same edition of the T&S.
Long before any scholar pronounce their own theory as to the location of the land of Zarahemla, Joseph had already declared it to be in Central America, in the southern region of the continent, just like the BOM describes. No scholars or theories needed to narrow down the general area, Joseph did it for us. Thanks, Brother Joseph!
Also, know, in the same T&S Oct 1, 1842 edition, the editors (Joseph, John, & Wilford) refute the conspiring claims, suggesting Joseph had fled the area of Nauvoo and is on the run. Truth is, Joseph was still in the area and still very much editor of what was published in the T&S Oct 1, 1842; while at the same time avoiding false arrest of conspiring men. Read the full edition, Joseph was still around and still very much in charge, as represented & substantiated by the T&S article itself. So a very special thanks to the editors(Joseph, John, & Wilford), for documenting this conspiracy so long ago and clearing it up, so future generations wouldn't have to speculate about it.
Here's an interesting collaboration on what Joseph would have seen on available maps regarding Guatemala's borders when Joseph made his declaration; google - "map of Guatemala 1825" (or 1835, it doesn't matter) open a properly labeled map and notice Guatemala's borders back in Joseph's day extended as far north to include the Chiapas & Palenque areas of modern-day Mexico. Say what! A very interesting area indeed!
With Zarahemla in Central America according to Joseph, does the BOM narrative accommodate Joseph's other claims of "“wandering over the plains of the Nephites," and the Zelph story? Could both be accurate and plausible? Yes, in fact, these stories actually collaborate with the BOM narrative precisely with no contradiction. Alma 63 and Helaman 3:3-5,12-16 states many groups of Nephites left the land of Zarahemla & Bountiful and migrated to the north country, both by land and by sea. This also accounts for how a Zelph-type character and other descendants of converted Lamanites were in the northern country during the last struggles. Remember these Nephites departed FROM the lands of Zarahenla and Bountiful sailing across a sea. Also note, there is a sea, not just land, between Zarahemla and the land of a New Jerusalem in the north country. So yes, there are plains of Nephites in the heartland of the north country, known currently today as The United States of America. There are no contradictions by Joseph, and no mental gymnastics or exclusions are required to make things fit. The book itself, says we will find evidence of Nephite cultures in the heartland of North America; any evidence found in the heartland collaborates with the Book stating other Nephite groups left the lands of Zarahemla & Bountiful of the southern region of the continent (aka Central America). Here's a fun tidbit, apparently Mormon lived in the north country until he was 11 years old, when his father then moved them to the land southward, even to Zarahemla. see Mormon 1:6.
No scholars are needed to locate the region of the continent where the city of Zarahemla was; Joseph already took care of it in 1842; it's in Central America; to attempt to speculate this truth away is futile.
After studying the Book of Mormon and Joseph's statements, coupled with my own personal experiences, I agree with what Joseph published, Zarahemla, is somewhere in Central America (aka Mesoamerica). I also, know and understand, there were other Nephite groups who left the lands of Zarahemla & Bountiful who migrated north and settled all across the north country, known currently as the "heartland" of the United States of America.
Zarahemla is in Central America, the southern region of this Continent, the narrative of the BOM is correct; it all fits, placing the New Jerusalem in the "heartland" of the current United States of America.
All things considered, it all fits as stated both by Joseph and the Book.
Thanks for watching
The chiasmus in Alma 36 is also impressive given earlier in the BOM we learn Alma was very convincing with his words when leading people away from the church. Much later in Alma 36 - which is a letter, not Moronis abridgement, we get an insight into just how good he was with his words. There is almost no way to explain this chapter away other than an ancient author.
First we are told, then we are shown in Alma 36.
That's an excellent observation.
I hate to tell you this but chiasmus is not evidence for some ancient text. There is chiasmus in the D/C and that is not ancient. We really need better scholarship in the church instead of apologists.
That's more easily explained simply by J. Smith being a persuasive speaker which he obviously was.
@@tayh.6235 Explain away.
@@mikez1114 There is a difference between chiasmus generally, which shows up in many, many cultures and Semitic style chiasmus which is a literary art form, that has a number of literary features that also show up in Alma 36. The D&C has relatively short, and simple chiasmus, not long and highly elaborate ones. The short ones are all over the place in English literature and elsewhere, and seem to happen by chance, rather than by intention.
Once a scholar approaches these subjects, they are immediately engaged in apologetics, unless it is to disconfirm or cast doubt on the text. The line between "real scholarship" and "apologetics" is drawn between whether the data supports the claims, or does not support the claims the way you're talking about it.
Our best apologists have always been scholars, not amateurs. I hope in the next video Murph asks Dan about people like Dr. Thomas Murphy and Dr. Brian Hauglid, who are members that hold that Joseph just made it all up. How do we as members continue in embracing the Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, when the Church allows dissenting views to be publicly aired and embraced? What reason do we have to be members of the Church at all if the Book of Mormon and revelation scripture is a lie and a farce, and you can hold those positions as a good-standing member? That's something I want to know.
Finding The Interpreter has been very heartening for me. Some of the scholarship is a bit too cerebral for an amateur like me, but there's a ton of fascinating research being done.
The Book of Mormon as a type of Christ:
-So the Book of Mormon has an origin in Heaven just like Jesus
-both are prophesied to come by prophets
-both are sent by God to bring truth, covenants, and salvation
-Christ is made perfect through what he experienced and through the furnace of affliction just as the plates have to be refined in the furnace to be formed
-Christ suffered and bleed from every pour before he was pierced by nails, the plates were pierced over and over and engraved on every page by a tool that’s basically a nail
-the Book of Mormon was rejected by the people it was sent to save just as Christ was rejected by the people He was meant to save
-Christ: buried and sealed in a stone sepulcher just as the BoM buried and sealed in a stone box
-Christ: round stone covered tomb BofM: round stone covered box
-Christ and the Book Teach the Spirits of the Dead
-Christ rises from the dust just as the BOM rises from the dust
-Christ: Angels present when stone was rolled back, BofM: Angel present when stone was rolled back
-Christ has 11 official witnesses (12 apostles- Judas) BOM has 11 witnesses (3 witnesses + 8 witnesses)
-BOM man can get nearer to god by abiding by its precepts than any other book and Christ man can get nearer to god by abiding by its precepts than any other man
- Christ is the word BOM is the word!
Keep up this content Murph! So glad you're making it
Thanks ❤
@@mormonismwiththemurph I heard that Donald Trump asked to be baptized after hearing Dan Peterson speak! He would be a great Mormon!!
@@nathanbigler Nope, sorry, but Mormons don't eat the "little crackers" that he is used to.
I found this presentation worth listening to.
Thanks Brett!
Great conversation
Thanks!
Really great conversation. Very enjoyable to listen to. Some fantastic insights. Thank you!
Thanks for watching
I would like to modify one of Dan’s statements toward the end of the video [my insertion]: “[LDS] People with superb training in ancient studies and so on still believe it to be true and believe it to be credible.”
I know this is not necessarily relevant to Dan’s specific arguments about the historicity of the BOM. Blake Ostler is in the comment section and has already pointed this out. Regardless, the total disregard of a historical BOM in the secular world needs to be accounted for. It appears that academia will not take the historicity of the BOM seriously as an ancient text. The consensus, today, in academia is that the BOM is a 19th century religious production. Why is this so? A grand conspiracy among secularists? Fear of dismissal from the academy? Loss of reputation? Why are we left with Peterson, Welch, Sorenson, and Ostler to produce apologia on the matter? Where are the academics from Latin America? The Middle East? Why does no one take this text seriously if it is so clear to believing LDS scholars that the BOM is a historical text?
Does the baggage of “Mormonism” really have the weight to dissuade scholars from uncovering truth? These are possibly ground breaking truths. Does the insertion of a Native American angel into the provenance of the book automatically delegitimize the text? Does the purported translation with divine stones detract possible inquisitors? It shouldn’t because of the witnesses and the sheer existence of the text, right? Is the dismissal of the BOM really all attributed to religion?
I ramble a bit here, but this is a significant part of the discussion regarding the BOM and it’s historicity. The historicity of the BOM is not necessarily linked to its divinity. Both spheres should be able to stand on their own feet. The religious at BYU and elsewhere attempt to converge these two spheres, academia has not. Both have come up with explanations. One supernatural, the other natural. Testimony is inextricably linked to the historicity of the BOM (in believing spheres). Divorcing the two is not possible in correlated Mormonism. That is why Vogel’s explanations will always be refuted. Secular lenses will always be dismissed by believing scholars. Any naturalist will tell you it is more plausible that a handful of 19th century BOM witnesses were guided through a meditation than the existence of resurrected native Americans distributing golden books that could only be translated with the aid of rocks. Believers scoff. Same goes for the content of the BOM. Every year, it seems like we get a better understanding of JS’s milieu. Turns out, he was not that dumb. With every passing year, the plausibility of his authorship increases. At the same time, archeologists claim the legitimacy of the BOM has increased. That is not so in academia. This must be accounted for.
Do you have data on: (1) how many actual biblical scholars have not only read but studied and read the studies about the BofM: (2) what percentage of those scholars didn't already have their own biases that would affect their views? Isn't what is important is explaining the evidence that has presented in favor of the Book of Mormon in a scholarly and objective (at least as objective as one is capable of being) in a way that does justice to it without simply writing it off based on the number of votes? Remember that the vast majority of scholars accepted phrenology; the blank-slate theory of human knowledge; the Fleischmann-Pons’s Nuclear Fusion theory; Einstein's static universe view; and atomism. It is very simple to see that votes and even consensus are simply irrelevant to truth; what is relevant is the evidence. An d you haven't come close o dealinng with that.
@@blakeostler8965 I appreciate the reply. (1) I do not have the data you are requesting. I would be shocked if not one non-LDS scholar of antiquity (besides Coe who seemed to tolerate the LDS) took the BOM seriously. You would know better than me (especially since you seem to think you know better than everyone). (2) Every one of those scholars who have engaged with the BOM approached it with their respective biases. This is a given. So do you. Just about as given that voting does not determine truth. Who really believes that?
I am not claiming that your arguments (and Dan’s) should be ignored. I am simply pointing out that the secular world doesn’t seem to care about what you have to say about the historical BOM. I look forward to the day the BOM is taken seriously by the academic world. You will finally have a target to aim for instead of stomping on “ignorant exmormons”.
Unfortunately, us simple minded people don’t have the time or means to decipher near-eastern, biblical, and meso-American scholarship like you do. We have jobs, families, and lives outside of the BOM. We rely on others to present arguments on platforms like Murph’s to come to our own conclusions. We all can take as much time as we need.
On another note, and while I have the attention of the ‘god’ of apologetics, I hope you don’t take this too personally, but you have failed to convey your message (I am talking in general now). I shared my thoughts on Murph’s interview of you about this. You have great arguments but you simply come off as a condescending and arrogant man. I have listened to many, many of your appearances. You treat everyone who knows less than you like ignorant fools. No matter the legitimacy of your argument, or the facts presented, you will not get anyone to listen if you discuss your interpretations like this. What’s with that dog at the end of your comment? Really? I am a stranger online? How can you have any idea what I have dealt with from a comment on a UA-cam video? You are just proving my point. All the best, friend.
@@DevilsRavioli My first inclination is to see your response as a passive-agressive personal attack. My question is this: how could asking questions trigger you like that? My considered response is to learn from your feedback. In that vein, I will do my best to not be arrogant and to stop knowing as much. :) Just what in my response suggests that somehow I know more or am arrogant?
With respect to the questions: how are they arrogant or out of line? Honest question. These seem like questions that virtually anyone ought to ask of what you asserted. In response to your queery: There are in fact non-Mormon scholars who take the Book of Mormon seriously: Margaret Barker (biblical scholar) and Sami Hanna (who translated the Book of Mormon into Arabic and was a Near Eastern languages expert and later joined he church). I personally knew Fr. Bricarello who was an Egyptologist in Turin, Italy at the Egyptian Museum who joined the church after determining that the Book of Mormon had numerous Egyptianisms and was consistent with his understanding of the ancient world. But let's admit that the vast majority to not believe the Book of Mormon. The real question is: of that vast majority, how many have taken the text seriously enough to actually study it and the evidence for it? I suspect that their background approach to issues of religious texts make it so that even the concept of a Book of Mormon that is genuine is not a live option for them. (That is actually my experience), Thus, they can dismiss it out of hand. As someone quipped - the Book of Mormon is not a book one has to read to have an opinion about it.
@@blakeostler8965 I believe you mean vein not “vain”.
Well I think it can be accounted for because there is kind of no way to separate the divinity from the historicity in the case of the Book of Mormon. With the Bible non-believing academia can separate the two to some extent by parsing out the historical information from the text and selectively ignoring or discounting the divine elements professed there (prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc.). It is impossible to do that with the Book of Mormon as the very source of the historicity requires acceptance of a divine element. I have seen this played out in the books I have written regarding the BOM for which I always have paid peer review done, sometimes using a third party entity to oversee the review so that they are completely blind reviews and non-LDS for the most part as far as I can tell from the results of the review. One reviewer commented that my work (involving a comparison of Olmec archeology and culture with the Jaredites) was very good. He added, "OK stuff about Joseph Smith and angel is of course bullshit, but the Book of Mormon does seem to be some kind of ancient text." Another on a different book I wrote showing that the Jaredite (and other BOM) names were constructed using Sumerian etymological units using Mesoamerican methods of forming names commented (he was an expert in Sumerian with advance degrees and research) that my methodology and use of Sumerian source material were good but commented that if my research was in fact correct, than that would mean that "the BOM is in fact true, but of course it CANNOT be."
So basically that is the way I see it. What you are saying you would like to happen does seem ideal, but I can honestly never see it happening with the divine genesis and trappings of the book and the text.
Murph, you are the first podcast ive seen that come from a knowledgable place of the critics arguments, and yet are able to convey them to a believing audience becaues you have returned to belief. I appreciate so much this form of dialogue. As someone who left belief in the truth claims, (because i was living an unhealthy perfectionistic version of the religion, as well as the historical and logical inconcsitencies) but could never leave it alone- not in a critical sense, but in a curiosity sense- i fiind your perspective and approach similar to one i might have if i were to return to faith. I want to give the book of mornon annother chance. For all the grief the critics give Dan, (and i wont lie, i enjoy a lot of their content) i found Dan's actual framework for his views to be surprisingly rational here. I should clirify im referring to Daniel Peterson, not Dan Vogul, (and they really need to do a video together- Murph, if you could make that happen- im sure youve thought of that) I appreciate dialouge of thi kind more than pretty much any other kind of media. Thank you both for this exceptional conversation, looking forward to hopefully many more videos like this.
I really appreciate that, I try my best to stealman or convey the critical arguments and what to explore answers and talk with scholars. I'd love to bring on Dan Vogel and Dan Peterson, I think they could have a great discussion!
Make sure you watch part 2 when we dive into criticisms
As you consider returning to Mormonism, just consider the fact that Mormonism teaches the very sin of Lucifer that got him removed from heaven according to Isaiah. This is no light thing. The choice isn't between being right about Jesus or being wrong about a few points. Its about being right about Jesus or adopting the very sin of the devil himself.
@@blusheep2 I’m trying to understand what you mean by the sin of Lucifer? Pride? Wanting the glory of God? Are you advocating Protestant Christianity then?
@@zmb5126 Thank you for your curiosity.
I am a protestant Christian.
Isaiah 43:10 reads, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, _and understand that I am he: BEFORE me there was no God formed, neither shall there be AFTER me."_
Lucifer was removed from heaven. We read about it in Isaiah 14:12 _"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
In Isaiah 14:14 we read about the ambition of Lucifer that got him kicked out of heaven. He said, _"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."_
What does he mean by "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds?"
In the ancient world the gods were said to be above the clouds. In the OT, in Baal worship, in Egypt, etc, the gods were said to "be above the clouds," "ride on the clouds," "ride on the clouds of heaven," "come on the clouds," etc.
So in modern words the verse would read like this, "I will become a God. I will be like the Most High."
Lucifer was removed from heaven because Lucifer wanted to be a god and thought he could be. It WAS pride of course but it was pride in the form of believing he could be like God.
This is what the Mormon church and Joseph Smith teaches. In fact, are not the temple ordinances like marriage, baptism and the priesthood all requirements to reach the celestial kingdom where one can become a god?
This is my opinion here, but it seems to me that Mormons give a lot of lip service to the father and I imagine that they genuinely respect and love the father but their real aim isn't about the father at all but becoming like the father... like the Most High.
I hope that clears things up.
Been waiting for this. I remember the Dr. Peterson’s interview on Mormon Stories eons ago fondly. Miss what Mormon Stories was.
Thanks ❤
I greatly admire Dan for his perservernece in the face of nasty comments. He is a PhD who has indepth knowledge of the Middle East and ancient cultures there. He has spent a lifetime studying the Book of Mormon and does a great job defending it. I encourage others to listen to what he says.
Very true.
Why does no one else who studies the middle east support the BoM then?
Interestingly, if you ask ChatGPT about the Book of Mormon, it is ambivalent, stating that there is disagreement among scholars, and showing points in favour and against the historical authenticity of the book. When I asked about Flat-Earth theories, ChatGPT was adamant that Flat-Earth theories are absolutely false. I then got it to break down the chiasmus of Alma 36. The result is below for anyone interested:
A: Introductory Material (verses 1-3)
B: Alma’s Life Before Conversion (verses 4-11)
C: Alma's Vision on the Road to Damascus (verses 12-15)
D: Alma's Anguish and Suffering (verses 16-17)
E: Alma's Cry to Jesus Christ (verse 18)
F: Alma's Experience of Conversion (verses 19-20)
G: Alma's Praise of God (verse 21)
H: The Lord's Answer to Alma (verses 22-23)
G': Alma's Praise of God (verses 24-26)
F': Alma's Experience of Conversion (verses 27-28)
E': Alma's Cry to Jesus Christ (verse 29)
D': Alma's Anguish and Suffering (verses 30-31)
C': Alma's Vision on the Road to Damascus (verses 32-33)
B': Alma’s Life After Conversion (verses 34-42)
A': Concluding Material (verses 43-45)
It isn't the best analysis, but it was able to make a parallel between Alma and Saul/Paul, which was interesting. Further inquiry when ChatGPT was directly fed the Alma 36 text, and asked to assume the text is a chiasmus (loading the dice a bit), the following elements are identified throughout. The response is below:
"A: Introduction and exhortation to listen (verses 1-2)
B: Remembrance of the captivity of the fathers (verse 2)
C: Plea for the son to hear and learn (verse 3)
D: Distinction between temporal and spiritual, carnal mind and God (verse 4)
E: Testimony of divine revelation through an angel (verses 5-8)
F: Command to stop seeking destruction of the church (verses 8-10)
G: Response of fear and amazement (verse 11)
H: Torment and remembrance of sins (verses 12-15)
I: Desire to be banished and extinct (verse 15)
J: Racked with torment for three days and three nights (verse 16)
K: Remembering the prophecy of Jesus Christ (verse 17)
L: Crying to Jesus Christ for mercy (verse 18)
K': Pains and memory of sins dissipate (verse 19)
J': Exquisite pains and exquisite joy (verses 20-21)
I': Vision of God on His throne (verse 22)
H': Restoration of strength and testimony to the people (verse 23)
G': Labors to bring souls to repentance (verse 24)
F': Joy in the fruit of labors (verse 25)
E': Personal knowledge from God (verse 26)
D': God's deliverance and trust in Him (verse 27)
C': Belief in future resurrection and praise of God (verse 28)
B': Remembrance of the fathers' captivities (verses 28-29)
A': Commandments bring prosperity or being cut off (verse 30)
The text exhibits a chiastic structure with balanced and parallel elements, forming a concentric pattern. It demonstrates the characteristic features of a Semitic style chiasmus, such as the repetition and reversal of ideas, balanced parallels, and nested structure."
However, it doesn't seem to completely be able to decide where the centre of the Chiasmus is, but I am inclined to go with verse 18-19. I wonder if we can verify Dan's hypothesis that 1 Nephi is a Chiasmus using a more powerful AI, or one that can give more extensive answers.
That's interesting!
Cool exercise
Charting the Book of Mormon,© 1999 Welch, Welch, FARMSChiasmus in Alma 36 Myson give ear to my words(v. 1)
Keepthe commandmentsand ye shall prosper in the land (v. 1)
Do as I have done (v. 2)
Remember the captivityof our fathers (v. 2)
They were in bondage(v. 2)
He surely did deliver them (v. 2)
Trust in God (v. 3)
Supported in trials, troubles, and afflictions(v. 3)
Lifted up at thelast day(v. 3)
I knowthis not of myself but of God(v. 4)
Born of God(v. 5)
I sought to destroy the church (vv. 6-9)
My limbswere paralyzed (v. 10)
Fear of being in the presence of God(vv. 14-15)
Painsof a damned soul (v. 16)
Harrowed up by the memory of sins(v. 17)
I remembered Jesus Christ, a son of God(v. 17)
I cried,Jesus Christ, son of God(v. 18)
Harrowed by the memory of sins no more(v. 19)
Joy as exceeding as was the pain(v. 20)
Long to be in thepresence of God(v. 22)
My limbsreceived strength again (v. 23)
I labored to bring souls to repentance (v. 24)
Born of God(v. 26)
Therefore my knowledge is of God(v. 26)
Supported under trials, troubles, and afflictions(v. 26)
Trust in him (v. 27)
He will deliver me (v. 27)
And raise me up at the last day(v. 28)
AsGod brought our fathers out ofbondageand captivity (vv. 28-29)
Retain aremembrance of their captivity(v. 29)
Knowas I do know (v. 30)
Keepthe commandments and ye shallprosper in the land(v. 30)
This according to his word(v. 30)
@@caseycosgriff We owe Welch a lot for his work on all of this. One thing I don't know whether he figured out was why element "i" in his first paper on Alma 36, was out of order. Do you happen to know?
Bro u playing with chatgpt are u nuckin futs.
Does the Church sponsor archaeological studies of events and people from the Book of Mormon? There must be loads of artifacts from the great wars and battles!
There aren't any archeological finds of Maya or any Mesoamerican battle sites by anyone. This expectation is not based on any science or expectation of archeology for any Mesoamerican civilization.
Yes there are tons of artifacts that are 'parallel evidences'. You understand that term?
@@jerrygrover8992 if you have any sources of any history of the Book of Mormon please release sources so we are able to review it
@@jerrygrover8992 I don't look at the book a Mormon form a religious point of view that you have to have faith to believe it
From my studies there is absolutely no evidence what so ever for the book of Mormon people to have exist no Landmass, no linguistic evidence , No artifacts so it a fiction novel or we can say a fan fiction Bible to the one that believe in it
@@jerrygrover8992 I see. Is Mesoamerica where the Book of Mormon officially took place? Some of my friends thought it was New York.
Love Dan and his sober, faithful approach.
Thanks for watching
JS didnt even notice the profound
parallelism in his revelation about
his fathers vision... those few chapters
alone are a gem of truth to which the rest
of the scripture only multiply thousands
of % of truthfulness confirming
the Restoration of Christ's church
Great presentation, thank you so much. I love Dan and I appreciate him sharing his views and knowledge. One quick comment though, the whole “rock in the hat theory“ is nonsense. A huge enemy of Joseph Smith, a man that literally said that he looked forward to the day that he would wash his hands in the blood of Joseph Smith, he is the instigator of that fabrication and many other lies about Joseph Smith. his name was.Philastus Hurlbut. And he was quite the ConMan. He was excommunicated from the church for adultery, and for making up lies. He was hired by enemies of Joseph to go back to Joseph’s homeland and to dig up as much dirt as possible on the Prophet. He couldn’t find anyone to talk bad about Joseph Smith, so he simply made up a bunch of stories himself. He claimed Joseph’s family was a bunch of riffraff, Joseph’s dad was the town drunk, Joseph carried a magic stone in his pocket that he could look at periodically to see the future. And Philastus is also the source of the rock in the hat story. None of this is true though. They are simply concocted stories that are designed to make Joseph look like a bad person, instead of the great man that he was.Philastus Hurlbut also made up stories about Joseph being a gold digger and a money seeker. He claimed that Joseph’s magic rock could lead him to buried treasure, etc. None of these stories are true. All of it was concocted by an evil individual that hated Joseph. these writings made their way into a few newspapers and were eventually included in Fawn Brody‘s anti-Mormon writings. They have also made their way into LDS church archives. I don’t understand that part, surely people at church headquarters can understand when falsehoods are written by people who seek to destroy their reputation of a good man like Joseph. Richard Bushman even included this nonsense in his book rough stone rolling. Incorrect information like this only causes people to lose faith in a true prophet of God that was intentionally slandered.
There's a video I did about Book of Mormon translation, there are faithful sources and statements from Emma Smith, David Whitmer and Martin Harris who all witnessed the translation process and state that the translation was miraculous and by the gift and power of God. So both the faithful and unfaithful sources corroborate that this was the method done.
Martin Harris mainly claimed that Joseph used the urim and thumim to translate. He's not a great source to back up the stone in the hat.
I found Daniel again yay! this is great! enjoying your interview. Thank you both!
Thanks for watching
This was wonderful!
Thanks ❤
JS crafting complex chiasmus throughout the entire BoM in his mind only to never mention it to anyone knowing it will be discovered hundreds of years later. Great theory 😅 😂 .
Such a beautiful book!
Okay, last one.
Jershon would be interesting if the text a) linked inheritance with the name of the place and b) the term inheritance had some unique connection with Jershon. However, the Book of Mormon uses variants of the phrase "land of inheritance" so often, that connecting it with Jershon, in such a way as to suggest it as evidence of the Semitic nature of the BoM is presumptuous. Other lands of inheritance include Jerusalem (Old World), the Land of Nephi, the Land of Bountiful, the Jaredite land, and so on. Jershon is not unique in this. And Jershon is not clearly linked as being associated with inheritance, as it is just as, if not more connected with being a land of defense or protection.
It is interesting to me how much some people want to have proof of this or that when it comes to certain things but not other things.
For example, how many people really understand anything very well, let alone perfectly? No one does. Even the most expert of experts on a given topic does not.
In fact, the more one studies something the more one realizes just how much more they still don’t know and how much more there is to be understood. The more we discover the more we realize just how much more there is to discover.
So, who among you holds off on anything until X amount of proof? Let him cast the first stone.
How many of you could possibly write one hour of your day in sufficient detail to withstand all the possible questions that could crop up even as you are alive to answer to them, let alone 1 second after you die when you can no longer respond, and let alone after 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc? Will you be able to write such a perfect history of yourself that will withstand all the potential future presentism that you will be subjected to?
Who among you really understands the language of your choosing? And yet many of you use it all the time. I find each day I awake just how much more there is to learn and explore of the language of my choosing.
Who among you really understands your own body, how it functions, and the physics of the universe you are presently in? And yet many of you nonetheless continue to use your body and go about living in a universe that you really don’t understand. Science still has so much more to uncover and understand. It is just getting started, and the more it uncovers, the more we realize we still don’t know.
And on and on.
We all live by faith. Whether we admit it or not.
The 10 to 82nd atoms in the universe including your own 7 to 15 octillion atoms might suddenly decide to go their own way tomorrow. There is nothing in science to say otherwise. We don’t know. We simply don’t know. It is all faith.
For all we know, the universe is about to burp and we will all be dust in the wind, and there will be no mourning for us. We won’t even be an afterthought. It is all faith.
This is all well and good, but the problem is what this “church” demands from its people for something with next to no evidence of authenticity. This church has lied to its members for decades, hoarded money secretly until they were recently exposed, not to mention all of the backtracking and reversals of horrible policies they’ve done. Yes, I don’t know everything. But why would I put all my eggs into a basket that requires 10% of my income when the organization is richer than some Fortune 500 companies? A “church” that shames people’s bodies by making them wear horribly uncomfortable and ugly underwear? I don’t know if god is real or not, but I know this “church” is a fraud.
So many great questions and answers. Thank you.
It would be extremely interesting for your audience, if you could arrange it, to have Mr. Petersen and Dan Vogel on together; posit several challenging questions and ask each to respond with his best explanation. Re today's episode "very difficult to account for" how Beethoven was composing symphonies at 8yrs old. The same old presumption the Book of Mormon must be historical because JS couldn't possibly have written it has a more satisfying and plausible explanation, if Mr. Petersen ever dare to look. So much taken for granted as true here that doesn't auger anywhere but among other apologists, who state as matter of fact, e.g., that Joseph Smith knew the geography of the Arabian peninsula, when objective scrutiny by unbiased observers debunks the assertion. None of Mr. Peterson's presentation addresses the avalanche of evidences that counter his conclusion that Book of Mormon's "complexity" makes it true.
I might arrange that
Interesting Peterson quotes Emma Smith when making a point about JS level of education, but does not accept Emma Smith when she claims JS never taught or practiced Polygamy. It’s as selective as Hales. Believe the women, but only when they write aligned to a ‘faithful’ view of 19th century history.
Emma had good reasons to downplay or even lie about plural marriage. This should not be a surprise to anyone who knows her history with the practice.
My favorite theory of Dans is about the horses the BOM mentions are actually tapirs. I imagine the mighty Nephite armies going to battle on tapirback.
Dan didn't originate with the loan shifting argument. He merely proposed it. Also the nephites and lamanitrs never talk about riding horses into battle.
@@mormonismwiththemurph LOL. The horse has been man's most important domestically-trained animal for at least 6000 years. The BOM story alleges that its people came from the Middle East, where horse and chariot use was common. If the BOM people didn't ride horses into battle (as the story has Ammon preparing the king's horses and chariots), then the BOM people must have been the dumbest sumbitches who ever lived.
Your apologetic does not negate the fact that the BOM states that there were domesticated horses in pre-Columbian America, when in fact they didn't exist until the Spaniards brought them in the 1500s.
As Murph pointed out -- there is no mention of anyone riding horses in the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, a painting by Arnold Frieburg, used by the Church for several years, had that image. It was incorrect.
@@jeffschrade4779 Modern domesticated horses did not exist in the Western Hemisphere until the Spaniards brought them in the 1500s. So, no matter how the Book of Mormon says that its characters used or didn't use horses, the mere fact that the book states that humans had and used horses in Pre-Columbian America tells us that the book is a fake.
That is just one of the many anachronisms in the book which makes it a 19th century hoax. Its author was simply unaware that horses didn't exist in the Americas before Columbus. That anachronism is why some Mormon apologists have floated the silly theory that the horses mentioned in the BOM may have actually been deer or tapir. That theory is silly because if deer or tapirs could have been domesticated and used like horses are, the Mayans and Aztecs would have still been using them that way when the Spaniards arrived. Such theories demonstrate the ridiculous level that Mormon apologists must descend to in order to defend the book's authenticity.
Everyone assumes the climate of North America in Nephite times was the same as it is today. The climate of North America during the Nephite timeline was the Middle Woodland Period. The climate was much milder, a lot more rain, and snowed only occasionally on the northern parts of the land. Therefore, the Land Northward/Desolation in the Heartland Model would have been the only area to get snow occasionally. I grew up in Utah, and I've experienced numerous days in winter that was warm enough with the sun I was sweating, especially shoveling snow or running around. The Lamanite lands never would have had snow. The Nephites who had snow occasionally wore full cover of clothing and the Lamanites wore only loin clothes. It makes sense.
Also, Sea North and Sea South aren't mentioned until the land of Desolation gets settled in mass. So when Helaman 3 is describing the settling of people, I believe it's describing the land of Desolation being settled specifically. Therefore, the land of Desolation would spread from Sea North to Sea South, and from Sea East to Sea West, which would be a perfect description of the lower peninsula of Michigan. The other seashore mentioned east to the west of Nephi and the seashore east if the east wilderness would be the waters of Ripliancum/Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.
Isn't the "quote" from Emma about JS not being able to write a coherent sentence coming from the same news letter where she supposedly stated there wasn't polygamy, no book or draft was present during the translation, and that JS would pick up where he left off? This comes from a publication from an RLDS apostle a few weeks after Emma's death, so she didn't have the chance to refute it, and it shamelessly "proves" the RLDS are correct rather than the Brighamites. Isn't that enough to throw the whole thing out as a source?
Secondly, I would love to hear Dan's take on Islam, the Quran and Mohommed. I'm not the first to point out that JS and Mohommed have similar origin stories, meek people producing rich, consistent scripture that establishes a new religion. Why does Dan subscribe to the mormon origin and Joseph Smith and the BoM, but not necessarily to Mohommed's and the Quran? I imagine there may big important pieces missing in the latter, but would love if Dan shared his take on it!
We talk about his views on Islam in part 2
Re the quote about not being able to write a letter -- I've heard that that was an 1800s equivalent of "can't chew gum and walk at the same time" -- that is, an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally, because the "well-written letter" was something taught in elementary school. I think I heard it in one of Rick Bennett's interviews (probably the 2nd of the 2-part series he did with Dr. WIlliam Davis, titled "Re-evaluating Translation Timeline for the BOM").
I’m sure he subscribes to Mormonism and not Islam, because he was born into Mormonism 😂
Daniel Peterson has written EXTENSIVELY on Islam and taught about it at BYU. Here is a link... ua-cam.com/video/fuL32AdCr18/v-deo.html
I have always thought that many authors who conceived of fictional realms, even J.R. Tolkein, created maps and drawings of their kingdoms for reference. Joseph didn't do this. There is no evidence of this anywhere in all the hundreds of documents we have in the Joseph Smith papers. All the geographical references he made sprang from his memory alone, or from revelation and the historicity of the information in the Book of Mormon itself. Also, after the Book of Mormon was published, Joseph at times spoke of how certain events from the Book of Mormon, occurred in the local area. If he were going to assert that Book of Mormon events were local, why would he not have made that completely obvious and linked to local landmarks in his translation? He definitely didn't pre-meditate this con very well...The arguments made by those who would call him a con artist have fallen short in explaining how someone could sustain such a remarkably elaborate con without attempting to orchestrate it in a much more organized and logical way.
Your entire argument falls apart when you mention the word "revelation". That is basically a synonym of fiction. Tolkien had "revelations" on how to craft Middle Earth all the time during the writing of LOTR. And yeah, I would hope Joey had a good memory of the geography in the area he grew up in. Also, he DID link local landmarks to his translation. Some of the names of places and people in the BoM are straight rip offs of locations in his area at the time. And the fact that you claim his con wasn't "elaborate" proves that you have fallen for his con, even though he's been in the grave for almost 200 years. It was the 1800s, people believed in anything that helped them explain things they couldn't explain. He didn't need a lot of pre-meditation to create the con. He was very charismatic and intelligent, like most cult leaders are.
I am constantly amazed at how so many intelligent and well-studied adults my age and older manage to convince themselves this is all "real". Occam's Razor is applicable to nearly all of Joseph Smith's dealings and writings as well as the Mormon church itself. The simplest answer is the most correct one, and the simplest answer is that in order to believe in this religion, you have to abandon critical thinking as well as defend ridiculously debunkable inconsistencies. In short, the simplest answer is that it is a fraud.
There is so much talk about Chiasmus being a huge piece of evidence for the BoM. It is an old argument which has increasingly become less relevant towards a divine source for the BoM.
The D&C is also full of examples of Chiasmus as is Joseph Smith's own diary... neither of which are translations from an alleged offshoot of Semitic writing styles.
Interestingly, even the followers of James Strang, rival to Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon for leadership of the church at the time of Joseph Smith's death claim to have chiastic structure in a set of scripts he translated form found plates... which also have 11 eye witness'.
Joseph Smith claimed to have studied the Bible since the age of 5... he was well familiar with chiasmus, and it is not out of the realm of possibility to develop a knack for naturally creating its form without trying to. The chiasmus ‘evidence’ is like trying to prove from a piece of music that its composer must have studied music theory. And yet there are tons of music, fulfilling the basics of music theory, produced by people who couldn’t even read and had no formal training whatsoever.
No, you're grasping...Chiasmus was unknown in Joseph's day, especially in America. Intricate chiasmus is not done on the fly, and you're trying (desperately) to make Joseph more educated than he was, by all accounts, including those closest to him. I don't see Chiasmus in D&C as problematic because it appears to be a Spirit driven literary device.
I'm aware of no comparable chiasmus in Strang's record but will check into it. There is no equivalence in Strang's witnesses and the BoM witnesses. The Strang witnesses did not attest to any supernatural event...only that they were present when his record was dug up (most likely where previously buried by Strang or associares). And unlike the BoM winesses, there is no comparable evidence that the Strang witnesses ever repeated their testimony or defended Strang's plates during their lifetime, as the BoM witnesses did repeatedly. One Strang witness (Bacon) did later deny divine origin of Strang's record. Several Strang associates later said they helped manufacture Strang's plates. Saints Unscripted has a good video comparing the Strang and BoM witnesses. The 11 BoM witneses remained true to their testimony, despite several becoming estranged from Joseph, which is a strength of veracity. As Dan says in the interview, they stood to gain considerably by exposing the BoM as a hoax. It is critical to consider such arguments. Why did Martin risk losing his farm and his wife to participate in a hoax? Were Oliver and Sidney, both who witnessed supernatural events, co-conspirators or victims? Or telling the truth? Why did Joseph's entire family believe him? Why did Hyrum read from the BoM as he waited to die at Carthage if it was a fake? These compelling sociological aspects are ignored by critics.
@@lemjwp1756 good golly, either Joseph Smith was an uneducated hillbilly, or an extremely articulate prophet... it changes according to the narrative which is being told.
The D&C wasn't written by ancient Semitic authors... unless now the newest conjecture is that the spirit and Jesus speak in chiasmus verbiage... conjecture and allowances can always further the cause of a failing apologetic stance.
Let's further evaluate BoM witnesses and their claims. If they are the upstanding men we are to respect and listen to their testimonies, let's take it all in.
Martin Harris was unpredictable and saw signs of the supernatural everywhere, and later even added his testimony to another scripture based book with the same gusto he used for the BoM.
David Whitmer said the following:
"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them."
Oliver Cowdrey said he never saw a physical set of plates, but rather only visions... which goes along his frontier magic habits of using divining rod and second sight claims.
If you are going to hold the BoM witnesses on a pedestal, all of their history and statements should be taken into account.
We should not overlook the primary accounts of the events they testified to. The official statements published in the Book of Mormon are not dated, signed (we have no record with their signatures except for Oliver’s), nor is a specific location given for where the events occurred. These are not eleven legally sworn affidavits but rather simple statements pre-written by Joseph Smith with claims of having been signed by three men and another by eight.
Finally, when evaluating the overwhelming preponderance of evidence stacked against the Book of Mormon, it strikes as close to a death blow which can be done agains the truth claims of the BoM. It takes only one anachronism to call an entire script into question. If you were to read a biography about Abraham Lincoln which included his daily blog updates, you would certainly discount the whole biography. Unfortunately for the BoM, it's not just one anachronism, or two, or three, but rather several. From the simple... metallurgy, linguistics, archeological, DNA... to the complex, Deutero Isaiah, strikingly similar concepts to popular beliefs in Joseph Smith's day and other undeniable and relatable milieu, and Native American origin theories.
But bringing this back home, IMO, Dan Peterson failed to produce any evidences in this interview, and even perpetuated now disavowed evidences. As an academic with advanced credentials, he failed not only himself, but the countless other academics with the same level or higher degrees of expertise whose expert positions fly in the face of what Dan claims.
ALL of the scholars cited to provide evidences for the BoM have a "need" for it to be true, and many of those have staked their careers on their claims. All BoM supporting scholars are either employed by the church or heavily connected to it. Despite countless experts outside of mormonism who have looked at the BoM, not one, ever has ever validated any of the claims made, but on the flip side, several previous touted BoM scholars who once supported the BoM have since retracted their professional support... that is telling of a bubble of bias you had earlier referenced.
I look at Gee, Muhlsteen and Peterson though a lens of pity. Their whole professional lives, their private lives, their careers, their personal relationships, and their characters have all been placed in one basket of apologetic belief. It is hard to fight agains that.
At the end of the day, hard core apologists are only speaking to themselves in an echo chamber validating their own incomplete beliefs. If anyone on the outside does pay attention, stretched apologetic claims only drives them away.
Mormon apologists began pushing things like chiasmus and similar "internal evidences" and "textual evidences" about a half century ago because they realized that they would never find any external evidence to support the story. Chiasmus is really just a deflection designed to try to keep members believing.
@31:50 Re cognate accusative, I was listening to the trial of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the radio and laughing out loud to recognize one as the young woman translating him said "I have sworn a swear" (i.e. oath)
At 52:50, Isn't The Hebrew New Year Rosh Hashanah, which usually falls in September? And, the heartland model would not have placed Tiancum in "Buffalo New York". It would have been much further south, probably somewhere between Tennessee and Illinois.
Murph, you said something in this interview that you have also said in other interviews that is incorrect. You indicate that the Jaredites landed in the New World which was "that quarter where there never had man been." That reference is found in Ether 2:5 but is referencing their travel BEFORE they crossed the ocean.
You're right, I checked the reference and that is one I'd been misquoting getting the context wrong and not referring to the promised land. That helps resolve a criticism!
Joseph Smith averred that the Jaredites were the first people to inhabit the Americas after the flood. Joseph Smith also taught that the first humans on earth, Adam and Eve, lived somewhere in western Missouri about 6000 years ago. Since, according to his teachings, the flood killed all humans on earth except for those aboard Noah's ark about 4500 years ago, then the Americas would have obviously been unoccupied when the Jaredites arrived shortly after the flood.
That is, if you believe what Joseph Smith said. Actual science tells us that the Americas have been occupied by east Asian-descended peoples for at least 20k years. So, if Adam and Eve lived in Missouri just 6000 years ago, and thought that they were the only people there, those prehistoric Indians who lived all around them must have been vewy, vewy quiet.
Dan Peterson was in the bishopric of my student ward when I was a freshman at BYU. I'm sorry I didn't talk with him more, I didn't properly appreciate all the stuff he was doing.
Dan Peterson is a titan of a scholar!
It would of taken years to traveled the Americas they would travel for days settle for a while then travel again, and that’s how the Lamanits stread out all around the Americas it’s how we all spread out all over the world.
The Timeframe of X amount of pages per day is per THE STORY-NARRATIVE told by close associates/family. He actually had 6-7 years to create the book.
Any archaeological finds?
None since the fake kinderhook plates that proved Joey was a fraud!
I remember the first time reading the Book of Mormon. I didn’t care how unlikely it was and how many pieces of the text appeared to be lifted from 18th century literature, I just knew it was TRUE!
1:06:29 i thought scholars were agreed that the “black and white” reference in Nephi is not referencing race, but drawing upon Old Testament terminology of black and white being righteous and sin/gloomy.
It’s not an anti racism verse.
Interesting to here Peterson actually think literal skin colour changed as referenced in the BOM. Most scholars reject this literal interpretation and certainly textual cues in the BOM demand it’s rejection.
Most current apologists reject the literal interpretation by using a scholarly filter. It wasn't until fairly recently that people began to claim that the skin of darkness meant something other than a skin of darkness.
The church and many of its apologists are great at obscuring history to better fit into a more pleasant now.
Not just Hebrew idioms, textual analysis of "blackness" when applied to people in texts dating from the late 18th and early 19th century shoe the word is ten times more often used for Europeans who are dirty, lazy, or wicked, than to me someone from Africa, and never to mean a Native unless also indicating that they were dirty, lazy, or wicked. Disney preserves this usage today in the cartoon characters of "Black Pete", a mean bully.
@@brettmajeske3525 sure… and if we ignore decades and decades of prophets and apostles teaching the opposite in the name of god in lesson manuals, conference talks, personal correspondence, and official church letters, I might take pause. As it stands, it was meant to refer to the dark skin directly.
@@jaybravo2199 You might want to recheck those conference talks, letters, and manuals. They do not date from the time of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Both used "Negro" or "slave" far more often than "black".
Brigham Young used "black" mostly to refer to apostate former priesthood holders.
It was not until the mid 1900's, well after that generation had died off that LDS leaders started using "black" instead of "negro". The idiom of English changed, and most leaders did not notice.
In much the same way that "after all we can do" changed in common usage and so members of the 1900s misunderstood what was clear to their grandparents.
I am not claiming no one misunderstood, but I have not found explicit mention of "blackness" meaning skin color among the first generation of leaders. Some ambiguous mention in second generation, but it really is not until the third generation and later that such is the clear meaning.
@@brettmajeske3525 I can’t tell if you are being serious or just in a serious state of denial… seriously, the church’s own gospel topic essays contradict what you are saying… I mean, Brigham Young was one of the worst.
But a latter day prophet is a latter day prophet right?
Please ask Bro. Dan to return and discuss the Book of Abraham.
We touch on it briefly, but could do more.
The Qu'ran has "lasted" but it's still 100% false. So saying "If it's untrue then it wouldn't have lasted" is not an argument.
Are you sure it's 100% false? I've read it, and I'm not so sure it is 100% false. Maybe not totally correct, but like a lot of holy books, the contents are difficult to be pinned as just a bunch of rubbish. The only category of "holy writing" that probably are obvious frauds are the many theosophical documents produced between the late 1800s and early 1900s.
You're an ignorant fundamentalist Christian. The Quran isn't 100 percent false, and it's nothing like the Book of Mormon. It's more like that D&C, a series of revelations.
How have you proved the Qu'ran to be 100% false?
@@caseycosgriff Qu'ran = Jesus did not die.
Qu'ran = Jesus is not the son of God, for Allah has no children
Qu'ran = Jesus is not God
Qu'ran = children are conceived, by a woman's seed, coming from her backbone (no such bone)
Qu'ran = slay the unbelievers where ever you find them (2:191
Qu'ran = do not befriend non-muslims (3:28
Qu'ran = terrorize or behead those who do not believe in the Quran (8:12)
@@caseycosgriff
Bible = You shall not eat any animal of the cloven hoof (including camels) Deuteronomy 14:3-7
Qu'ran = Camels we have made for you to eat (Qu'ran 22:36)
This 2 hour list would be more compelling if there were any physical artifacts from the Book of Mormon peoples. There is none. We recently discovered a pot with burnt cheese 3000 years ago idk why we can't find anything from any Nephites or Lamanites.
How might we distinguish between a nephite pot from the rest of the people there?
@@mormonismwiththemurph I'm not sure, I'm not an archeologist. But there are ways to tell, otherwise we wouldn't know about a ton of cultures through their artifacts.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I would answer by saying, inscriptions and markings on their pottery, just like we find in every other part of the world. The people of the BoM were a literate race even though no native American group in the ancient world was, as far as we can tell.
Other ways might be from their jewelry and their symbols. The BoM people had very unique beliefs compared to modern native Americans.
In Canaan, you can identify the difference between a Canaanite city/settlement and an Israelite city/settlement by the bones left behind. Israelites don't eat pork. Canaanites did. The Nephites and Lamanites were Jews who would have took their customs and godly laws to the new world. This should show up in the New World somewhere, I'd think.
The BoM people were adept at smelting iron, the native Americans never were. Even into South America, the iron age never began until contact with outsiders. We should be able to find the remains of bronze and iron furnaces or the products themselves that the BoM people would have made.
We can identify Egyptian civilization from 3000 BC, but we can't identify one artifact that matches the BoM people.
Silly wabbit1 The Nephites had no cheese.
@@mormonismwiththemurph "How might we distinguish between a nephite pot from the rest of the people there?"
Duh, the same way archaeologists distinguish pottery between ancient people who live just a few hundred miles from each other.
And of course, Nephite pottery would be inscribed with "and it came to pass."
Care to explain why so many cities and landmarks that are named in the book of mormon are so similar to the names of cities and landmarks where Joseph Smith grew up?
Are any of those actual existing cities the world can go to and experience and agree that they actually are Nephite and/or Lamanite cities? Parallels do not establish reality, only actual artifacts from actual cities do that. Similarities are not evidences of the strength of actual cities and landmark OF Nephites, if they existed.
@@TheBackyardProfessor No kidding sherlock, I am asking that question because it shows that Joseph Smith made up the BOM and used the names of nearby towns and landmarks in the BOM.
@@TheBackyardProfessor The Hill Cuhmorah hasn't moved from upstate NY. They just got rid of the Pagent because it makes their claims look horrible since NO artifacts have ever been found there.
Mostly for the same reason why so many of those very locations were not named until after the Book of Mormon was published I suppose.
@@sonysoyboysaremadeoftears.7404 Less than 5% of the proper nouns in the Book of Mormon have an explicit analog with towns or landmarks near where Joseph grew up. And most of those are better explained by both frontier America and the Book of Mormon borrowing them from the Bible.
Please explain how; after Joseph Smith finally obtained the plates was able to run 3 miles back to home, through the woods, at night, fighting off 3 attackers (2 with guns) who were trying to steal the valuable 'gold' plates, while carrying (given the dimensions) about 200 lbs. of gold plates?
That was his mom's recollection decades after the fact.
@@paulbrusuelas6706 Doesn't matter, Smith is a liar and the truth was never in him, but he had and still does have a lot of people thinking he did.
Smith teaches of 'another' jesus than the Jesus in the Bible.
Apostle Paul warns of teaching another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11), and explains; “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
The plates don't have to be solid gold, rather they had "an appearance of gold". In fact, most gold objects aren't at all solid gold. They could've weighed 50-60 pounds-ish, which is a lot, but also Joseph was a farm boy.
@@spadecrazeruns5703 Moroni describes the plates as 'gold' and it's hard to believe someone, supposedly of Hebrew descent, wouldn't know what actual gold is.
Wikipedia sums it up like this;
Different people estimated the weight of the plates differently. According to Smith's one-time-friend Willard Chase, Smith told him in 1827 that the plates weighed between 40 and 60 pounds (18-27 kg), most likely the latter. Smith's father Joseph Smith Sr., who was one of the Eight Witnesses, reportedly weighed them and said in 1830 that they "weighed thirty pounds" (14 kg). Smith's brother William, who had lifted the plates, thought they "weighed about sixty pounds [27 kg] according to the best of my judgment". Others who lifted the plates while they were wrapped in cloth or enclosed in a box thought that they weighed about 60 pounds. Martin Harris said that he had "hefted the plates many times, and should think they weighed forty or fifty pounds [18-23 kg]". Smith's wife Emma never estimated the weight of the plates but said they were light enough for her to "move them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work".
From descriptions of the plates' dimensions, had the plates been made of 24-karat gold (which Smith never claimed), they would have weighed about 140 pounds (64 kg). Based on the plates' lighter weight and Stowell's description of its corner's "greenish cast", one scholar has hypothesized Smith made the plates from copper, which weighs less than gold and rusts green. LDS writers have speculated the plates could also exhibit those qualities if it were made of a copper-gold alloy like Mesoamerican tumbaga.
As far a Smith being a 'farm boy', he had a bad leg from an earlier operation than hindered him throughout his life.
Bottom line, the plates are not available to see, which will always remain a mystery, however, given Smith's shady past, lies about his treasure hunting days, and lies about his 30-40 wives later in life, you seriously have to question the reliability of anything Smith says. Which is obviously very difficult for mormons to do.
@@johns1834 You seem pretty experienced in LDS history. I'll also say this, "gold rings" usually aren't 100% gold. I'd assume the same thing for gold plates, but they are a little bit harder because there aren't many of those in the world.
Great video. The witnesses who left are a great evidence.
Thanks, they are. I did an episode on them
Awesome episode!
Thanks
Thanks!
Thank you!
Also interesting, from Don Bradley, Joseph's hat was made of beaver skin and used like a veil with the seer stone. Parallels to Moses whose face shone and then put on a veil made of badger skin after obtaining stone tablets from the Lord.
He's very CAREFUL to say "OUR calendar " in North America.
THAT is the perfect tell that he's - as an ACADEMIC - _invested_ in his _own_ theories , likely spoken often enough that a reversal could WELL be problematic .
*"OUR"* , CALENDAR as Wayne May CLEARLY DESCRIBES as PART _OF_ "The Heartland Model" , is NOT THE RIGHT 13 month CALENDAR TO USE .
_IF_ he were more familiar with an opposing point of view ( and he very WELL may BE ... ) , and WITH his _stated_ "loyalty_ to The Book of Mormon , he'd know that the need for a SECOND HILL CUMORAH look it up or check out Wayne May here on Y-T ) and the "Calendar"
_in ACTUAL_
use ,
along WITH Non-LDS Work on the _various_ North America Model sites , would at LEAST offer far more compelling evidence than a lack of writing , which assertion _itself_ is not accurate.
I _also_ note how quickly he stepped _away_ from the "writing" discussion , BEFORE showing SPECIFIC _EXAMPLES_ of the very Semitic Constructions he spent so much time on , earlier in the presentation .
Oh well, the search for a FULL and honest voice
continues ... .
I really enjoyed this interview with Brother Peterson. I only sort of disagree with him on the geography of the Book of Mormon. I say sort of, because I personally believe the Lamanites did live in Meso America. I also believe the Nephites lived in Northern America. And I’m sure they probably mixed and mingled at times. I think there’s enough evidence to prove both the Meso, and Heart Land theories. Another great person to have an interview with is Wayne May. He’s more of a Heart Lander, and he has a bunch of really old artifacts, and evidences to prove it’s at least a possibility.
I don't get too caught up in geography. I personally lean more towards mesoamerica, as I think the findings of large civilisations, highways, fortifications in the jungles of Guatemala align with the text as well as the volcanic activity and sunken cities discussed in 3rd Nephi before Jesus return and the climate. No snow discussed in BOM. I also believe the geography was limited to a smaller land mass and couldn't be hemispheric. But I'm open to migrations northward.
I think the best scholarship points to mesoanerica, but I'm not going to argue with people about it!
" I personally believe the Lamanites did live in Meso America. I also believe the Nephites lived in Northern America."
LOL. So you believe they traveled thousands of miles to constantly wage war against each other for 1000 years?
What is your evidence that either of them lived in either location?
@@mormonismwiththemurph "I personally lean more towards mesoamerica, as I think the findings of large civilisations, highways, fortifications in the jungles of Guatemala align with the text"
Give us list of those large civilizations which haven't been identified as being Mayan, Toltec, Olmec, etc. If there was a "large civilization" in mesoamerica that was built by the Nephites, then there should be all sorts of Hebrew/Christian iconography all over it, right? As well as evidence of horses, the wheel, metal smelting, etc.
The largest city in Pre-Columbian America was Tenochtitlan, at present-day Mexico city. Its population was 200k when the Spaniards arrived in 1521. The BOM states that 230,000 Nephites were slain by the Lamanites circa 400 AD. So, any area large enough to produce and house that great of a population would necessarily rival Tenochtitlan in size and majesty, except 1000 years earlier.
Archaeologists have unearthed numerous large cities from the Mayan classic period which began around 300 AD. So, if the "Nephites" existed anywhere in Mesoamerica, the ruins of their civilization should be as obvious and as abundant as it is for Mayan or Aztec cultures.
@@randyjordan5521 did you know there is proof of long distance travel by the Cahokia people? Yip, white sand from Florida has been found in the mounds in Ohio. How did it get there if there wasn’t commerce, and travel. And why couldn’t they travel back and forth for war fair, during war time. We’ve only been on this continent since the 16 hundreds, and just look at how far and wide we’ve spread. They were here for 2,000 years, 1,500 years longer than us. There’s just a lot we don’t really know about what and how it all went down, but the evidence is out there. The most important things can’t be found anyway, and my testimony of the Book of Mormon is spiritual not archaeological.
Is this based on the original version of the BoM or the version we have today?
I'm Jewish and when I read the Book of Mormon, there were so many Hebraic sounding phrases and ways of saying things that I felt it had to be true. So i joined the Church. Havent regretted it since. The only other possibility is that Joseph Smith didn't write it. And I think the evidence supports the "official story."
That's really cool. Hebraisms is something scholars find in it.
Cool story! I'm planning on studying many other religious texts in the future just so I'm not restraining myself to Christianity, hopefully I'm in the true church but you always have to look around you.
its obvious to more literate
and analytical people that its
profoundly genuine... add openness
to God and you find it an ultimate treasure
not lead but TUNGSTEN would be
the next alternative to gold for density
of weight... but then that was only discovered
a few decades before the 1820s
They have a Quran class at BYU?
Apparently so
Not one Mayan sword has survived to modern times.
Duh, the Mayans did not have smelted metal technology. They used wooden clubs embedded with sharp stones in the heads. All of that talk in the Book of Mormon about "swords of finest steel" in ancient America is hogwash. There was no forged metalwork in the Americas until the Spaniards arrived in the 1500s.
If the gold plates never existed, how did Joseph get numerous witnesses to stand by their stories until their dying day, even when some of them later became angry with joseph and left the church?
How could Joseph have known about the ancient cement technology in the first century B.C. in mesoamerica?
How could Joseph Smith make up dozens of names in the Book of Mormon that would later be shown to be authentic semetic names?
Where did Joseph get the idea of ancient scripture written on metal plates?
How did Joseph Smith know about ancient practices regarding preservations of sacred texts?
Why do other ancient documents support the Book of Mormons idea that ancient Joseph prophesied of Moses and Aaron?
If there was no apostasy in the Church of Jesus Christ, then what happened to the prophets?
At a time when all Christian churches taught that temples were no longer needed how did Joseph so effectively restore the ancient temple concept on his own?
If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why are we the only ones with 12 apostles like it clearly was back then?
Now for the fun part. Bible verses
😄
Ezekiel 37:16-17 talks about 2 "sticks" where Judah will write upon it and Joseph will write upon it. Why has nothing come up about what Joseph has written besides the book of mormon? It also says they will be joined together into one "stick" which is how we use the bible and BoM together.
End of John 15 and beginning of John 16 it talks about how we will be hated for Christs name. However this could potentially be talking about all Christians in general which is true, But in our early church we were killed over it and it says that we will be killed over it.
John 10:16 clearly talks about other people that he needs to bring the gospel to. (people of the BoM)
Amos 3:7 talks about revelation but no "mormons" are crazy to think modern revelation can happen.
3 kingdoms of glory (plan of salvation) 1 Corinthians 15:40-42
Need for a restoration: Acts 3:19-21
Priesthood authority: Hebrews 5:4
(not scripture) but there was a study dont on the Book of Mormon using stylometry proving the BoM was written by multiple people and not one man. (Non LDS statistician that teamed up with BYU)
Title:"On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship"
Authors: John L. Hilton, et al.
Published in: BYU Studies, Volume 30, number 3- Summer 1990
Bible verses that talk about works along with faith:
James 2:14-26
Matthew 5:16
Mathew 7:21
Ephesians 2:10
Galatians 6:9-10
1 Corinthians 6:9
Revelation 14:13
Apostolic authority: Ephesians 2:19-20
Talks about us becoming Gods:
John 10:34-36
2 Peter 1:4
1 John 3:2
John 17:20-21
Psalm 82
Ephesians 4:5 talks about how we should be one and not split off when we dislike what we heard (Not split off when we dislike something)
Ephesians 2:20 talks about how his church will be built upon apostles and prophets with Christ being the chief cornerstone.
Christ became exalted and wasn't always:
Acts 2:30-33
Philippians 2:9
Acts 5:30-33
Luke 22:69
Mark 16:19
1 Peter 3:22
Ephesians 1:2
We can become like Christ:
Romans 8:29-30
Revelation 3:21-22
Revelation 2:26-29
Psalm 82:1-8
John 10:32-35
Acts 17:29
Hebrews 12:9
Talks about preaching to the dead or baptisms for the dead:
1 Corinthians 15:29
1 Peter 3:18-20
1 Peter 4:5-6
Baptism is required: 1 Peter 3:21
Hebrews 11:32-40 states in verse 40 that they without us cannot be made perfect. Which means we can do work for the dead and they cant be made perfect and like Christ without us.
Ezekiel 11:15-21 talks about how Israel will be scattered but will be gathered together. (who has more missionaries than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?)
Jude 1:15 talks about how we will be judged for being ungodly
Jude 1:18 talks about in the last days there will be mockers
Jude 1:23 talks about how people will hate our idea of garments and mock us about it (yet garments are "CRAZY" to non LDS)
Hebrews 7 talks about the Melchizedek Priesthood and how it is superior over the Aaronic priesthood (who has the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood?)
Hebrews 7:4 mentions patriarch which we have
Hebrews 7:5 talks about paying tithes (to my knowledge Catholics do as well)
Hebrews 7:26 mentions the position of High Priest
1 Peter 1:3 talks about how Christ is Heavenly Fathers son (Godhead)
Acts 7:55 "and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (somehow they are the same person!!)
Isaiah 2:2-3 talks about how the Lords house will be built in the top of the mountains. Utah literally means "people of the mountains". That is where our church headquarters is and where the main temple (which is the house of the Lord) is.
Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6:
"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
This prophesy was fulfilled April 3, 1836, when Elijah the prophet did come suddenly to the temple in Kirtland, Ohio, and bestowed the sealing keys of the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
Acts 3:22 says how "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." (sounds like he will raise up a prophet to me)
Amos 8:11-12 talks about how there will be a famine in the land, but not a famine of bread or thirst but of the words of the Lord and anybody who seeks or searches for it will not find it. (pretty sure a restoration is needed then!!)
Revelation 16:15
"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame"
Sounds like a need for garments in the last days for me.
Revelation 22:16 (which is prophesy for the last days!!)
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
An angel will come and testify!!!! (MORONI)
Restoration:
Isaiah 11:11-12
Daniel 2:34-35, 44
Malachi 3: 1-3
Acts: 3:20-25
If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow why does no other church have the seventy besides LDS?
Exodus 24:1,9
Numbers 11:16
Luke 10:1.17
Joel 2:28 says that a young man will see a vision (first vision!!)
James 5:14-15 talks about Elders and how they will give blessings with oil (We do that!!)
😄😄😄
I don’t believe the “flow of Sidon” is ever made clear in the BOM. You have to make an assumption about how the river looks at Manti.
by arguing that joseph could not have produced the book of mormon on his own, Dan assumes a false dichotomy: either Joseph produced the book of mormon on his own or he did it using the gift and power of God. I'd like to know what evidence Dan has that demonstrates joseph did not have help from co-conspirators? After all, conspiracy is a far more likely explanation than seer stones, white native american angels, golden plates, reformed egyptian... etc.
I think the diction process completely destroys any notion of co-conspirator explanation. The Book of Mormon was dictated over the course of about 90 days. In order to memorize the kind of information required to be dictated would be extremely difficult, especially since we have contemporary statements that he didn't have a manuscript or the time to go off on his own to memorize new passages.
It's the idea of the unexplained explaining the unexplained instead of considering more plausible and likely scenarios.
I once was convinced I saw a ghost as a kid... I stared at it for what I thought was hours. It was white like a ghost, moved and hovered like a ghost, and was there when I repeatedly tried to close my eyes and make it disappear. The unexplained phenomenon of a ghost certainly fit the description of a seemingly unexplained sighting.
After I gained enough courage, I crawled over to the ghost to learn that it was my cousins dress on a hanger on a door know being moved by the register vent.
Do we know all of the details on how Joseph Smith produced the BoM; certainly not. However, that doesn't mean it has to be God who was behind it.
@@blainehowes that is certainly the apologetic argument, but this narrative doesn't definitively rule out conspiracy. how do we know that Joseph's scribes were not part of the conspiracy? and why is divine intervention a better explanation?
@@blainehowes I suggest you research the phenomenon of automatic writing.
One of the most notorious example is a book called The Chronicle of Cleophas.
The author, Geraldine Cummins reportedly wrote thousands of words an hour without notes or prior information to what she was writing.
@@jaybravo2199 precisely! If one's eternal fate relies heavily on this narrative being true, we owe it to ourselves to definitively rule out all other likely explanations.
I do not have the time to listen 2h to something. can me someone please name the top3 arguments pro BoM because I unfortunetly tend to not believe in it as a historical book just because of evidences - and it would be nice to be wrong but my expectations are low.
It's hard to name the top 3)
For me I'd say
1) The old world geography parallels and Lehis travel through the Arabian desert and the locations and route they go on corresponding with the incense trail. Burying Ishmael at a place called Nahom. At inscription found in Yemen saying nhm ( no vowels in sametic languages) it being a burial site, and them travelling eastward to a place they called Bountiful which latches extremely well with a location khor karfot. A coastal oasis with timber, ore, mountain, honey etc.
2) Ancient sametic names in the bom e.g - Jershon, Nephi, Pahron, Pacumeni, Sam, Ammon etc.
3) BOM complexity- 600 internal consistent geographical locations, hundreds of characters, plot lines, Ether 1 lists 30 Kings and then speaks about each in reverse order, complex chiasmus like Alma 36 and Hebraisms, which are ancient Hebrew literary elements.
I also think the combined testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses of the gold plates.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I tend to find these the weakest points of argument for the historicity of the book of Mormon...
1) There is zero evidence of a family ofJews building a ship to sail from the Red Sea all the way to North America. This task would be absurdly complex and difficult for a few families to complete. Furthermore, there is less than zero evidence that a thousand years before that Jews built submarines and successfully floated to North America.
2) A handful of names, discovered and or recycled a thousand years later by judeo Christians... This is not impressive.
3) BoM complexity... Yes, if one accepts the faithful Mormon narrative that Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon in a roughly 70 day span that is impressive. However, Joseph had years to work on the story... He had already dictated the Nephi/Lehi story to Martin Harris once, a good portion of that was the Lehi dream which his father had recounted to the family years before.
A contextual analysis of the BoM shows that it's content is tightly tied with the KJV version of the Bible... IE, Isaiah. Couple with this, the other writings in the burned over district of upstate New York with other pastors, be clear 18th century Methodist influence on the doctrine of the book of Mormon... It becomes a lot clearer that the book of Mormon is a product of its time and not an ancient document. Every notable theologian or historian who read the book of Mormon dismiss it as Bible fanfiction - only church members manufacture evidence for its authenticity.
@@ozymandias6743 Less than a thousand years? You might want to reread the book of the Ether. Closer to 2000 years. And the ships described are not submarines.
First of all do you want to believe do you want what is contained within this theological construct then you apply faith study seeking understanding if on the other hand you don't then no amount of evidence or discussion is going to change that whether that's the Bible, Book of Mormon,Koran or relationships, politics,or science based theory
Dr. Seuss uses chiasm. Whoopie! When the going gets tough, the tough gets going! I just made a chiasm.
That's different to a whole chapter being one long chiasm like Alma 36, much more difficult to orally dictate with your head in a hat.
Finally, someone who gets it. Your are now my new prophet. Please lead me to the promised land of a bulletproof paradigm of truth.
"evidence is that he never went back and looked at what he had dictated"??? That "evidence" is the Story/Narrative told by those close to the creation of The Book of Mormon. We have to trust them.
In the Chat Brett you said that Puritan ideas were not prevalent in NY. What is the point of that? Just because it wasn't prevalent doesn't mean he wasn't exposed to it. Good example of that is Mormonism isn't common or prevalent now in the world let alone NY, doesn't mean people don't know about it. And I would argue the JS was a big fan of the uncommon stuff and I am willing to bet he even searched it out.
As a poor farmer largely engaged in manual labor, I wouldn't suppose he had time. He didn't read many books, nor was he a member of the library in his town.
It is a matter of likelyhood. Your assertion was that Hebrew was commonly studied, thus explaining Joseph's access. I countered that I could not find reports of it being studied in that time and place. You then brought up the Puritans as a counter. I just noted that whatever may or may not have been common among the Puritans would not be relevant outside of where they had influence.
I have looked into the common educational models of 19th century America, I have found no mention of Hebrew, rare mention of Greek, and even Latin being unusual. While the wealthy had access to private schools in which German, French, and Latin were taught, that is not what rural schools that the Smiths had access to taught. Not even Hyrum's charity school covered any languages beyond English according the documents I could find.
Beard suits you. Dan!
Also, Dan's "would the Lord give proof" arguments annoy me because he holds that position because, supposedly, this would protect my agency, but I would contend that, if the Lord is able to provide proof and does not, then he is actually limiting my agency because I lack the information necessary to make an informed and complete decision.
And The Major Problem..... The Messenger...Joseph Smith. His early and ongoing Lies and Frauds via moneydigging....His predation on Young Girls.... His Felonies in banking....destruction of a Free Press...etc Can't imagine Christ using a guy with that background and lifestyle.
Before I joined the Church I would read anti-literature. Frankly, they have become tedious and I just don't have time for them. There are better things I can do with my time.
Fair enough, you could spend a lifetime researching it all
@@mormonismwiththemurph Indeed. I would rather research the positives in the Church.
The anti-literature cult doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One by the name of Paul Gregersen debunked the arrogant Egyptologist assessments against Joseph Smith. Paul demonstrates that Joseph Smith was right, the arrogant Egyptologists were wrong. The anti literature cult will not admit it though.
Nephites could join the Lamanites by dyeing their skin. Do you think if I dyed my skin, I would suddenly be accepted as a black man? I would suddenly be accepted by other people who dyed their skin. The Mayans dyed their skin.
Yes, the ancient Nephites were pioneers in the art of blackface.
Appreciate Dan's perspective but gonna have to disagree with the Mesoamerican point. Migrating animals are in North America, not south. Yes, snakes are found in what we'd consider the south, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. The Mesoamerican carbon dating is far outside that of the Nephite timelines, and as far as Teancum being killed during the new year when it's hot, that's not according to our calendar, but the Biblical calendar which you can learn about in the Old Testament, Abib being the first month in which is the Passover, which we know as Easter, which happens in April, which is spring and in which there can be hot days. (Abib-April) Also, the Mesoamerican "temples" violate the law of Moses, specifically that law where is states: "Exodus 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon." All their temples have stairs, steps, but in the North American models, the temple plots you can see that they used ramps which would be in accordance with the law of Moses. And of course the specific DNA matches of the North American tribes with the Hebrews to whom Joseph sent Parley Pratt, Ziba Peterson and others to deliver the record of their ancestors as commanded of the Lord. It wasn't to tribes in South America. These are just a few examples.
Have you ever considered that Joseph was just a very intelligent and clever individual? The pace and accuracy at which a book is written isn’t proof that the content came from God.
The argument that a “farm boy” couldn’t do it is so outdated. We know that there are very intelligent individuals in our world that can do amazing things that most can’t.
I love how the arguments against the Book of Mormon are now coming full circle. A never ending cycle of cope.
The question then is if Joseph had such ability to create the Book of Mormon why did he not demonstrate it later in life?
View of the Hebrews is an 1823 book written by Ethan Smith, a Congregationalist minister in Vermont who argued that Native Americans were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel a relatively common view during the early nineteenth century
The book of Mormon was published in 1930 I agree with you 💯👍 we now know from DNA evidence 🧬 that this view has no basis in truth
In total approximately 30 percent of the Book of Isaiah is quoted in the Book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon which are quoted from Isaiah The Book of Mormon also quotes from the KJV and the way of the Hebrews and other books
@@michaelhutchings6602 I answered your question 👍
The one thing none of these people explain is how you should know it was from God and not demons, especially given that he was using some magical seeing stone, especially since scrying is explicitly forbidden this is not anything that you would find elsewhere in the Bible, and in fact it is strictly prohibited. Could certainly have given him all of his information just as easily, and that would not only explain the knowledge, explain why he was doing something forbidden in scripture, it went perfectly fit with what is known about the modus operandi of leading people astray.
Excellent question.
The One Word never mentioned.... "CONSPIRACY".... 11 Witnesses 9 of whom were Family Members....could easily be part of an effort to create The New Church....or at least a new Book to address a topic, much discussed, of interest to The Masses...origin of The Indians.
Why is it that there are not any cities named after the Book of Mormon cities? Like there are in Israel?
I do not understand the question. There are several cities in Utah named after locations from the Book of Mormon.
You should research the city of Lamanai in Belize, discovered in 1916. One of very few Ancient cities for which the original Mayan name is known.
Because the place names in the Book of Mormon are calques. They are not transliterated. Fairly common amongst Mesoamerican languages.
I blame the white man.
@@brettmajeske3525 " There are several cities in Utah named after locations from the Book of Mormon."
LOL Duh.
What I found to be consistent with cultish views is the lack of references to the scriptures. God’s Word is Truth and so it should be used to justify or dismiss theological arguments.
Here’s one case that would refute Mormonism;
““I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
Galatians 1:6-9 ESV
God says in His Word that the Gospel given to the church in the first century (saved by faith alone, not of works) that any other “gospels” are false.
ZZZZZZZZZZ same silly arguments repeated endlessly. Boring church's with no theological depth with nothing to offer.
There are 1000's of Gods. Which one are you talking about? Thor, Zeus, Mormon God?
If Paul spoke to the Galatians, and didn't contradict himself then, why can't a prophet speak to us without contradicting the Bible today?
@@caseycosgriff The Word of God does not change because God does not change. -
Numbers 23:19 - "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”
For scripture to not be consistent throughout all times, even in eternity, it would show that it is not divinely inspired.
But seriously, if a person came to you saying they spoke to an angel that told them new revelations in a cave or in the woods, you’d be suspicious. If they showed signs and wonders to confirm this “new teaching”.. You could then point them to one Bible verse that warns against relying solely on signs and wonders as evidence of true faith - Matthew 24:24, where Jesus says, "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
In this passage, Jesus is cautioning His followers to be wary of those who claim to be messiahs or prophets and who perform miraculous signs and wonders, because these signs alone are not sufficient evidence of true faith or divine authority. Rather, Jesus emphasizes the importance of discernment.
Hence Paul’s repeated warning in Galatians to not entertain false Gospels as they bring a curse. Regardless of the claims of Mormonism with signs and wonders and all, it’s false because it presents a gospel of faith + works which is not the true Gospel that Paul preached to the early church.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast."
Romans 3:28 - "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
Titus 3:5 - "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."
Just quoting scripture here, not my opinions. But please, quote me back scripture to justify your position.
@@sdfotodude your can't be that incoherent bud.
Listening to this makes me wonder about the body count of American LDS members going into the jungles to search for BOM archeology
A different version of Indiana Jones!
I have been all over in Mesoamerica and so far haven't run into any bodies. Just Americans with sunburned legs and mosquito bites struggling up pyramid steps.
Amusingly, a team of BYU instructors and students went to Central America in 1900 to search for "Book of Mormon evidence." All they found was malaria.
Why won't Daniel Peterson debate any BofM critics? If Daniel is so sure, why no debates?
I might ask Dan Vogel if he'd be willing to engage. I'd love to host a debate!
I came across a video of Peterson speaking at a FAIR conference. The comments were turned off. I guess they don't want any debates either.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I don't know how successful that would be. Vogel tends to deal in actual facts.
I will debate any critic. Critics are weak minded people. They have no foundation to stand on. They just throw stones. Ask them, okay, then to who should I go for truth, and they have nothing. At least not anything bullet proof like they suppose it should be.
@@randyjordan5521 Here's how debates go -- those who believe candidate/proponent A end up beliving candidate/proponent A, while those who support the other person believe their person held his own or won the debate.
Why don’t apologists ever mention that the 8 witnesses are family members
The Smith's, whitmers and Hyrum page. Why does that matter?
@@mormonismwiththemurph I just feel not mentioning they are family members, is leaving out information.
Having 8 physical witnesses is only useful if they are non bias and have nothing to gain.
I just feel that because it is only family members that physically saw the plates, and the scribes only spiritually did, it loses a bit of credibility…
The calendar year for the Nephites started in what is now April, I believe. Maybe Mr Peterson should reread Alma 62 a little more carefully as well because it doesn’t mention the “heat” as he suggested. Also, there are plenty of snakes in the Midwest.
Also, it can get warm even in April in the northeast US. Also, also, we have no idea what the weather was like 2000+ years ago.
You think you're enjoying a scholarly debate about Hebraisms and then whaaamo, glowing stones.
JS was a semi literate farmboy, for him to "fabricate"such a book on his own without the hand of God being envolved is phenomenally inconcievable
Except that he wasn't illiterate. He was actually very well studied, articulate, and intelligent.
Thank you for the Interview... however Dan Peterson, at least in this interview, has shown himself to be an apologist who relies on disavowed evidences and conjecture. He has done himself and his advanced degrees a huge disservice.
Copernicus, substantiate
@@GrassrootsLibertyBillFoster ... are you asking for me to provide evidences towards Dan Peterson's conjecture and use of disavowed evidences? I don't know what you are saying.
Dude, conjecture is a tool used almost anywhere when artifacts and details are scarce. It's completely valid to explore possibilities as Dan does. If you ask the most reputable critics of the Book of Mormon how JS produced the BOM they can ONLY provide conjecture.
@@GrassrootsLibertyBillFoster wut? What's the point of the cryptic wording?
@@mruss31415 Where Dan goes wrong is when he continues to side with conjecture when scientific observations and discoveries continue to push BoM apologetics further into the realm of possible versus probable.
Conjecture is fine when trying to figure something out... it becomes problematic when denial is fueling conjecture. Uncontrolled conjecture is how one begins to use the unexplained to explain the unexplained.
So, an angel of a deceased Native American prophet taught Joesph Smith over the course of years about a book he was to translate using the same method he used to earn money digging for imaginary treasure. The procurement of the BoM (date it was taken, what he was to bring with him, etc...) closely resembled the practices of frontier magic. The contents of the BoM were less peculiar as they are now when it was written... it was a popular theory of JS time to associate Native Americans with ancient Israelite ancestors as several books from JS's time were written detailing similar ideas. Taking a look at the ideas the BoM presented and how they closely resembled what Hyrum learned years earlier from Dartmouth. The several anachronisms included in the BoM including a damning deutero Isaiah. Joseph Smith several now problematic statements about early BoM people which were once considered Doctrine but now disavowed as mere opinions. The "translations" considered canon of Joseph Smith which we do have source records show that Joseph Smith's translation ability was something different than traditional translating.... the list can go on...
The point being, Dan's conjecture relies on possibilities in the face of probabilities.
It comes down to something called the preponderance of evidence... everything must be viewed together. One piece of conjecture must not undo another piece of conjecture, otherwise one or both pieces of conjecture are wrong. Dan's conjecture explaining for example how Meso-America is the only place where the BoM could have happened because that is the only place where Native Americans had a writing system. This conjecture flies in the face of early prophetic utterances from Joseph Smith when he found Nephite altars and skeletal remains of ancient Laminate warriors. Or conjecture about Jaredites coming to ancient American to intermingle with existing peoples even though the Jaredites were fleeing the mythical Tower of Babel in which it is told that peoples languages were confused so that no-one spoke the ancient language of Adam anymore.
So a tl;dr, healthy conjecture should always fade away as fact and knowledge come forward... Dan Peterson fails in that regard.
Well, don’t be so sure on the Mesoamerica postulation based on the “Panama” being the division North-South. The BOM says it was 1.5 days travel from one sea to the other to a Nephite. The shortest route in Central America (in Panama) would take days to cross, so it can’t be that that Mormon is referring to. Keep in mind that Israelites call large bodies of water, like the Great Lakes, seas.
Good points
It is only 38 miles across Panama, not that difficult to do in 1.5 days. Also, the description said it was primarily on a "line" which is indicative of a river in Egyptian, so it could have been much wider than someone could have jogged/walked in a day and a half.
@@jerrygrover8992 "It is only 38 miles across Panama, not that difficult to do in 1.5 days."
LOL. It was, 2000 years ago.
@@randyjordan5521 Average walking speed is 3 mph, so 13 hours walking should do it. As a geologist I have walked/hiked that far in 16 hours in mountainous terrain. And I am sure ancient peoples who walked all the time everywhere they went were in much better shape than me.
@@jerrygrover8992 Why would the Nephites have to walk that distance? Couldn't they have just ridden their imaginary horses and chariots?
WHERE Book of Mormon geography???
But if the book of mormon is not the word of god why the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints have been progressive and why the protestant they we're the same I mean they are still have nothing progress 💕
Joseph never said he shook Moroni’s hand so this whole thing is a non-starter right from the beginning 😂
So you're saying it could have been a bad angel? That makes sense a bad angel would tell Joseph to translate a record all about Christ, doing good, repenting, keeping the commandments and not following satan...
@@mormonismwiththemurph well the devil is very cunning you see. He will tell 10 truths just to tell one lie. So yes it may see mostly good, but really what he was after was to get people to believe in the other false beliefs in Mormonism. Temples, excessive tithing, polygamy, curse of Cain, etc.
I don’t actually believe any of this, but if you are playing in this magical world view not sure how you rule this scenario out.
Temples are important to the old and New Testament, tithing is 10% just like the NT, prophets like prophets of old, baptisms by immersion, polygamy when God ordains it like in the OT…appears it is what it says to be A Restoration Gospel.
@@wendyfoster5579 sorry I took some shortcuts in my reply and was not very clear. Here is what I really meant by the examples I gave
Temples - meaning the endowment ceremony, penalties, covenanting to give everything to the church, woman covenanting to the “law of their husbands” etc.
Excessive tithing - really what I was getting at is the massive hoard of cash that the church has but does very little unconditional aid (relative to their net worth) to feed and help the poor. This type of behavior is not supported by the NT. (Unconditional aid meaning you don’t have to do anything to qualify for it. Making people pay tithing in order to get help can hardly be considered charity!)
Polygamy- if you take a closer look at the OT it never said god commanded or ordained it. Philosophies and of men mingled with scripture yet again!
Curse of Cain - I don’t thing you addressed this one but it seems like a point against having prophets like old. God never bothered to tell them this was false doctrine until there was such intense societal pressure. Prophetic foresight indeed!
So you see Wendy the great deceiver is quite clever. There is enough truth mixed in to get you to go along, but once to take a closer look it does not hold water.
@@Rcplanecrasher MANY WIVES: I took a closer look at the OT and it says the prophet Nathan had confronted David about the killing of Uriah and the sin of adultery against Bathsheba and then reminded David that God was the one who had made David King of Israel and had also given David all of his wives except in the case of Bathsheba whom David had taken for himself without God's permission, so it was a law of God that David had already been living under given to him from God concerning all his other wives which were lawful for him to take otherwise God would not allow him to have any of those wives if they were not part of his law. So David had kept the law that's why he had many wives.
Temples - meaning the endowment ceremony, penalties, covenanting to give everything to the church, woman covenanting to the “law of their husbands” etc.
I see no problem with what is required in living the temple saint life because that's in line with the following principle of the gospel taught by Jesus in the Bible: 'Where much is given, much is also required...'. Yes the giving of Much is a gospel principle taught by Jesus in the Bible, to sacrifice all in order to follow him as he had asked of the Young Rich Man for all the Disciples of Jesus went up into the temple daily AFTER CHRIST was Crucified.
TITHING: Is not an evil thing for the Lord to save up his own money for his own purposes in the Church, the Lord gave a parable in Matthew 20 about those who murmur about what he chooses to do with his own money.
[10] But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
[11] And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
[12] Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
[13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
[14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
[15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? Matthew Chapter 20
So you can't complain to the Lord about what he does with his own money
Dan loves providing evidence he has within his own Echo chamber. Reputable outside Scholars do not agree with him
That is just both untrue and irrelevant. The issue is the quality of evidence and arguments; not the number of secular scholars that agree. At one time the scholarly world taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Truth is not determined by vote.
@@blakeostler8965 Truth is also not determined by special feelings. Faith is supposed to be the belief in things not seen, not a belief in things despite what is seen.
The scholarly world changed when scientific observation was applied to their methodology... it was the religious world which persisted in the belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe. I'm glad you used this example because it is a great parallel to what Dan Peterson and similar BoM apologists are doing. They are sticking to their outdated and largely disavowed beliefs while the scientific community is moving on with their knowledge of alleged BoM lands.
@@blakeostler8965 I would love to see him actually debate someone with views that do not align with his preconceived notions and biases. His apologetics are old and tired. Quite simply, even if everything about the Book of Mormon were true, sixty-to 70% of the people who once believed in it still think the church is not a healthy place for them.This would speak more about the culture than the truth claims, which are dubious at best.
I challenge Dan to show me 12 people who joined the church after seeing the movie Witnesses
@@blakeostler8965 by that same logic more people believe in Bigfoot or the Earth is flat than Mormonism
Joseph Smith "happiness letter" was well written.
As were his "revelation" which he began dictating in 1829.
👍
current sophisticates
are just as cancellable as any
of the "ists" of prior times... a silver
lining of wokism is making bare how
instantly anyone can be made
"and offender for a word"