Lars Nielsen - "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass" - Review by Dan Vogel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 жов 2024
- In this video, I review Lars Nielsen’s new book “How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass.” This may be the first formal review by a serious historian of the Book of Mormon and Mormon origins. Does Nielsen establish his new version of the old Spalding theory? Did a seventeenth-century Jesuit scholar named Athanasius Kircher contribute to the Book of Mormon? Did Dartmouth professor of linguistics John Smith write a first draft of the Book of Mormon and pass it to Solomon Spalding? Can these bold claims stand up to serious scrutiny? Watch this video and find out.
Please help me continue to deliver quality content by DONATING today:
PayPal: paypal.me/DVog...
Loving your channel, Dan! Still need to read your stuff but you're awesome and hope you keep this up for years to come!
MY UNDERSTANDING of the theory.
Spaulding studied Kirsher at Dartmoth, wrote a fake history of ancient america in the form of scripture, this text found its way to Rigdon, Rigdon was brought to Josepth by Pratt and they collectivly used the spaulding text as the structure for the BOM.
Without getting into the weeds, are you saying this is not possible?
Thanks for your review.
I don't normally think of historical evidence as what is not possible, but what is the earliest and best historical evidence.
Well it’s possible Big Foot is going to step out of the woods.
Thank you for this. I didn’t buy the book because I had seen him on Mormonish and his review seemed convoluted and did not sit right.
Glad we have you, Dan
I'm surprised FAIR hasn't used these "Kircherisms" to support the Book of Mormon....
@prophetcentral I'm working on it. Life is busy, and Dan's response is not professional enough to warrant a faster response, so thank you for being patient.
Really enjoy your work Dan thank you for all the effort you put into your books and discussions
Thanks for listening
I have read this. Looking forward to your comments.
Now I'm wishing I hadn't wasted my time reading this 😕 Appreciate your analysis Mr. Vogel
Just to play devils Advocate regarding the use of the name 'Nephi'. Spaulding was just writing fiction as fiction, so he could be using the name 'Nephi' just because he liked it. Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily aware of its origin as part of a fraud, so might just stick with it.
I have read the book but I'm not a Mormon history scholar. Some of it sounds plausible and some of it appears to be quite a stretch (speculation). I'll be interested to hear your take on it.
I felt similarly about him when I listened to his interview with RFM and Reel. He uses word fluff to compensate for disjointed thoughts and not getting to the point.
I cant wait to see Lars' response to this review. Im surprised that he hasn't made his way into the comments here.
You sir are the only one with brass balls!
Nielsen argues that Dartmouth professor of linguistics John Smith wrote the first draft of what later became the BofM, in which he intentionally put Kircherisms (like the name Nephi) to alert fellow linguists that his history was a hoax. Because he didn't want to publish it, he passed it to one of his students, Solomon Spalding. This is fiction.
@@danvogel6802 he sure peaked my interest on Mormonish Podcast (not enough to buy the book).
Thank you for interfacing truth to his theory.
Dan Vogel also Lars Nielson, as much as I want to watch a good boxing match of intellect between you two, I do want to throw my hat into the ring "I have a theory.
I think there is a link between Lars idea's and your resent video "Joseph Smith, the Necromancer". The Correlation I see is The Holiness to the Lord: (Parchment) or Lament = Plates. On the Parchment it has a word/symbol That starts and ends with what look like a letter M, many have guessed that the word spells out Mason, but I hypothesized that if you rearrange the last 3 symbols or flip the text it spells out Mor/Mon or Mont Maur.
If I'm correct this would link to the Magic-Man himself using the name as a calling card or mocking of those that use the symbols both linking back to Mont Maur. Both You and Lars in both videos show that this parchment/manuscript may have been passed down from John Smith then to JS. Kircher had a big influence in the editing of the Freemasonic, kabbalah and other magic symbolism which Luman Walters, Smith's, Chase, and Josiah may haven't realized when editing. The Parchment could have been the Original Gold Plates. Just a Thought. ®
ua-cam.com/video/05-xQ9B7Ubk/v-deo.html ||
ua-cam.com/video/8jQkzoinuBI/v-deo.html
Please don't publish a book.
I think you misunderstand Kircher entirely, because you have a different thesis. You also miss the Smith-Smith connection. Do I take it that you had it all figured out correctly in the 1978?
What is there to understand about Kircher that changes my critique of Nielsen? What is the Smith-Smith connection? John Smith, Ethan Smith, or Joseph Smith? I don't think I have it all figured out now.
Thanks for your honesty and quest. I'm trying to wrap my head around the Nahom location discovered in the Middle East. Does anyone have an explanation for how that appeared in the Book of Mormon?
I read the whole book, but am not well versed enough in the subject to discern what could be most seriously wrong with the theory. What was most off-putting to me about it was that Nielsen seemed to never miss a chance to include some mean dig against the LDS church, even going so far as to use temple endowment language to make jokes. Even if he doesn't believe in Mormonism anymore and feels resentment about the effects of past belief in himself, he could at least be respectful enough to adopt a neutral tone so that people don't dismiss his ideas out of hand.
Dan I absolutely appreciate your books and professional historical work you bring to the table. You truly show your authentic work when you criticize the critics as well as the apologetics and bring forth geat historical work that superseeds all others.
Thanks for noticing.
I bought this book on Kindle recently and started reading, but I put it on hold because I had some doubts about its accuracy. You just verified what I suspected, so I won't waste my time further. Thank you, Dan 😊
I passed on this book when it came out, and now I’m glad I did.
Dan, Do you believe it’s plausible that Joseph Smith simply borrowed from contemporary religion along with occult and alchemical philosophies in order to create or “restore” lost theological “truths”, the “bricolage method” Givens lays out in his book, “Wrestling the Angel”? Have you read that book? It was the beginning of the end for me as far as faith in Mormonism goes but a great read nonetheless.
JS borrowed from many places but also was creative himself. I haven't read that book, but other books he has published. He also discusses bricolage in his Pearl of Great Price book.
@@danvogel6802 Brickalage, yes that’s it! I think you would actually find “Wrestling the Angel” a good and interesting read coming from a believer.
At this point, I'm not sure what scholars and amateurs are suggesting now. I've heard Joseph Smith gathered bits and pieces of the BOM from professors at Dartmouth, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdrey, a salamander, the occult, magic mushrooms, dreams, visitations from evil spirits, trances, reading the View of the Hebrews, and combined them all into one nice Book of Mormon. I'm thinking that maybe he did just find plates LOL
You can't lump critics into one group and act confused, you just might have to think a little bit. Besides, believers also take many positions such as on Book of Mormon geography and weather or not JS used a seer stone in a hat, some more or less rational.
Glad we have you and your expertise, Dan!!! Thank you!!!
Dan love the content! Will you ever appear on Mythvision? I can give you his contact info.
He would love to go over your publications. He’s had a lot of LDS history & origin scholars on.
I think he would be especially interested in “The Making of a Prophet”
Excellent review! Love the depth. After watching his interviews on ML and Mormonish I thought the Kircherisms were interesting but quite a stretch. It almost felt like he was presupposing the Spaulding theory and looking for details to fill in the gaps
I watched the Mormonish podcast that introduced his theory. I anticipated your review.
Thank you for your review.
This book is the Exmormon version of Ponderize.
I thought it was interesting that Lars countered issues with his book by saying we have become subject to traditional historians and their ill-informed views.
Do you think he may have been referring to LDS/Church historians?
@@Allthoseopposed those are indeed VERY different things!
@@Allthoseopposed he mentioned Dan Vogel and other non-Motmon historians when he made the comment
I also found the book incredibly frustrating, and was really discouraged with how Mormon Discussions not only had him on, but RFM (who claims to have read it btw) endorsed this garbage and encouraged viewers to buy the book. SUPPORT REAL SCHOLARSHIP! Thanks for doing this review.
Be cautious with RFM’s endorsements. He’s no different than Nielson, bias and unable to take honest criticisms. I take him with a grain of salt.
He just goes with the wind. He is sort of the Rush Limbaugh of post mormonism. Lots of research and equal opinion mixed with entertainment. Birds of a feather flock together. I read the book. It was written to sell books. Why else include so much conjecture and confabulation. Props to Dan for the solud push back.
@@bstevens7647Post-Mormon Rush Limbaugh? That is great! I think Ol’ Brother RFM may, after pondering in his heart, find it amusing.
He is a former apologist and should (perhaps?) be forgiven a habit of that curiously flawed type of thought.
Since leaving the church, I wanted to produce a book dealing with all the lies. But then I found your books and realized it's all been said and much better than I could have done.
If BYU has indeed made a point of buying up many Athanasius Kircher source documents, then i think Lars is on to something. The church has a practice of burying documents that would harm their prevailing narrative.
It’s possible, but just because something hurts the church’s narrative doesn’t mean it’s true.
This is the review I've been hoping for.
Lol. The book is a funny, yet a painful poke at the existing narratives, in my opinion. You have to read it in light of what it is. It is not a serious scholarly book. He's creating a narrative that frankly seems as plausible in some cases as some of the current narratives, which are riddled with problems of or their own. You ignore what facts are there which, as few as they may be, demand attention. I have yet to see anyone seriously address those facts which he does happen to bring to the table, instead of attacking him, his writing style, and his made up dialogues (which he clearly identifies as made up).
I'm not laughing. You make no sense. On one hand, it's a joke, and on the other, there are facts that demand attention. Which is it? So, I'm addressing Nielsen's major assertions. They are fatal to his theory. If you think I'm wrong, give us an argument.
@@danvogel6802 Sorry, but I do find humor in this. You spent just over an hour "proving" his book and ideas wrong when he has stated very clearly that this is an opinion with many made-up conversations and possible narrative. I note you mentioned the mineral oil filled glass spheres - which he clearly notes in the included drawings. I don't remember you mentioning the brass balls he also had but made it sound like they were all glass - again - which he clearly describes. The primary question I see here is this, when do "coincidences" become something other than coincidence? Nephi, Mormon, Egyptian-like writings that no one but one person can translate, balls with pointers, etc. And about the Gold and Brass plates of Joseph Smith that you bring up - it is clearly noted now even by FAIR that there was no way those plates were actually gold, but some kind of an alloy. So again, I remind all who read this book that it is asking a question. In a way Dan, you have actually helped by pointing out similarities in your effort to show that they aren't the same, which they aren't.
Ignore any comment that begins with "Lol."
You seem a little defensive. Lars Nelson admits his theories are conjecture. His book is nothing more than a detour rabbit hole in an attempt to explain the origins of this book.
I don’t think Dan sounds defensive. I think he is getting straight to the point with what a historian does.
I have a random question. When examining the possible origins of the Book of Mormon and how it may have been composed, why is it that some non LDS scholars seem to accept the Church's timeline of events? For instance, they will say things like, "The BoM was written in a very short period of time", inferring that it would be near impossible for an "uneducated farm boy" to fabricate such a complex text in such a short period of time. How do we know it was a short time period? Is this supported by the history? What kind of evidence would be required to put the timeline into question?
Read Dan’s books and look at the foot notes.
Thanks for the video. I saw the last Mormon Discussion video and was not at all impressed by his hypothesis.
You've managed to blast it to smithereens with this video.
I’m so grateful for your work Dan
I won't be reading this book anytime soon. Thanks for the warning.
the review i've been waiting for
Absolutely appreciate the scholarship.
Thank you for this, Dan!
I have read the book twice. I only placed his writings as plausible.
This church is a catfish. Once you find out about and want to quit it your life just start to felt down like a domino effect. ! It was hard for me . 😢 I really regret it. 😢
Maybe I'm not your target audience as a non-historian post-Mormon, but I think your videos could benefit from more 30,000 views that explain how everything fits together and gives more background. I feel like I've been dropped in a forest and asked to know where I am based on looking at one tree with a magnifying glass. So many theories are referenced without explaining what they are. Of course, it's not your responsibility to teach us everything in one video. I just think a few more topic sentences would be helpful. Everything is really nicely tied together by the end though. Thanks for the review! I unfortunately already bought it and now won't bother to finish.
You are right. The video presupposes that you have read the book, and know quite a lot about Rigdon Spalding theory, etc. This is not a beginner's video, but more an expert level debunking. But maybe that's Dan Vogel's role. Introductions to the book can be found on other channels, a rebuttal of the Rigdon Spalding theory as well. Mormon discussions, Mormonish, Mormon Stories, Nemo the Mormon are good starting points.
I would also add that Vogel has videos on this UA-cam channel covering his own research on the origin of the Book of Mormon. Also, you may want to check out Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History." It was the first historically researched biography about Smith. It brings up some of these points about the possible origins or conceptualization of the Book of Mormon and describes the Solomon Spalding Theory.
Thanks for the comment. My videos are definitely down in the weeds. I feel that there are plenty of sources for the 30,000-foot views, so I try to provide details that you can't get without researching for 40 years. My videos are more like PowerPoint university-level lectures. I'm not only responding to Nielsen, but also trying to teach critical thinking skills and what the Book of Mormon is about. Even if you don't have the background information about the Spalding theory, I hope you got some information that you probably won't get anywhere else.
@@danvogel6802 Thank you for the reply! You have inspired me to educate myself more, and I agree it's far more valuable to put out what only you can contribute to the conversation than what everyone else already has. And thank you to everyone for the suggested resources!
Dan, did you provide Lars your review prior to today?
I’m wondering the same thing. I feel kind of bad for the guy. I’ve created many similar narratives as I’ve discovered new info or possible connections. Perhaps it’s his arrogance publishing his work without running it by any scholar knowledgeable on the subject that’s got Dan upset. 🤷♀️
I appreciate the creativity of Nielsen, it reminds me of Joseph.
@@Allthoseopposed I would say Joseph was far more creative and frankly much more inspired in his writings than Lars was in his journey to formulate this narrative. I think Lars' intellect gets in the way of his creativity whereas Joseph didn't have intellect to battle with so much to allow creativity to flow more naturally.
Prof. Vogel, It is always great pleasure to know your researchings. Thank for your time.
I'm really looking forward hearing your analysis of this fascinating book!
Thank you for this excellent rebuttal to Lars Nielsen's erroneous theory. When you quoted Lars' invented dialogues, I couldn't help but feel that some of the linguistic mannerisms resembled the stilted style of AI-generated content. This is only an observation on my part and I'm not saying one way or the other whether this is the case. Perhaps it's just his writing style.
That's a thought.
The 2 Maccabees reference to Nephi isn't a place name, to my understanding. I believe it's naptha, aka Greek fire.
You might be technically correct, but a quick search for "Nephi in Maccabees" with google shows: "Its appearance as a geographic name in 2 Maccabees of the Deuterocanon." It is also referred to as a place in many Bible dictionaries in JS's day. For example, “NEPHI, The place where Nehemiah found the muddy water, which was in the pit where the holy fire had been hid.”
Peter Oliver, The Scripture Lexicon; or A Dictionary of above Four Thousand Proper Names of Persons and Places ... (Oxford: Collingwood and Co., 1810), 183.
www.google.com/books/edition/The_Scripture_Lexicon_or_a_Dictionary_of/kPliAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=nephi%20maccabees%20name&pg=PA183&printsec=frontcover
@@danvogel6802 ah, thank you for the reference! Good to know that's how it would have been thought of at the time. Yeah, I believe that the naphtha in 1:36 is referring to the "thick water" in v20 which Nehemiah sprinkles on the sacrifice. The word naphtha (coming from the Old Persian word for wet) is still used today to refer to white gas, found in many lighters. Mishnah Shabbat 2:2 says that naphtha (naft) is permissible to light Shabbat lamps with.
I have been wanting to read this book. I can't wait to start now!
Go for it!
Thanks!
Thanks Dan. Good video. You are always so thorough. Do you know where the LDS church officially teaches when the so-called great apostasy occurred in Palestine? The Book of Mormon explains how and when it occurred in the Americas, but I can’t find any official church teaching of when it occurred in Palestine. Some say immediately after the last apostle died and some say it was much later. Most major biblical events are tied to some particular time period. When did the great apostasy actually occur? Thanks. John
No, I don't know if there is an official position on the Great Apostacy.
@@danvogel6802 Thanks Dan. Apparently, the LDS church doesn't have an 'official' position on when or even how ‘total’ the ‘total apostasy’ was or when it happened, which gives LDS the flexibility allows any adjustment deemed necessary.
However, most LDS seem to lean toward a 'total apostasy' occurring almost immediately after the last Apostle died and God’s removal of ‘ALL Authority’ from earth.
This would mean the mere existence of the Bible and the LDS acceptance of the KJV Bible indicates a 'total apostasy' could not have occurred.
If ALL Authority was removed, then it would not have been possible for the Bible to be canonized by the Bishops of the Catholic Church at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, because those Bishops would NOT have had any ‘authority’ to do so.
Yet, LDS use the same KJV Bible today with 66 books (Martin Luther removed 7 Old Testament in the 1500s during the protestant reformation) and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches still use the original Bible with 73 books.
Given, the fact LDS accept the KJV as ‘inspired’ simply means LDS recognize the ‘authority’ of the Catholic Bishops in 382 AD which is LONG AFTER ALL AUTHORITY was supposedly taken away.
Otherwise LDS should have rejected the Bible all together.
Keep those good videos coming.
Thanks, John.
@@johns1834 I would add that the notion of apostasy changed when the concept of angelic ordinations were introduced about 1834. Prior to that, it was the loss of the spirit, which was the authority. Also, the early church had the Puritan concept that there were invisible saints and that the church simply went into the wilderness, not that it was taken from the earth. The BofM was to cause a "reformation" among the existing church by correcting doctrine and renewal of the spirit, gifts, and miracles (see D&C 5 as originally published in the Book of Commandments).
@@danvogel6802 Hi Dan. Very interesting story in Jeremiah 28, during my morning Bible reading, about the prophet Hananiah, which is almost a foretelling of Joseph Smith and the LDS church.
Jeremiah 28:1-12 is about the prophet Hananiah falsely saying he would break the yoke of the King of Babylon in 2 years and restore Israel to its former place. Hananiah also speaks out against the true prophet Jeremiah which angered the Lord.
The Lord then tells Jeremiah the people of Israel must continue to wear the yoke of the King of Babylon and that the Lord had NOT sent Hananiah who had made this people trust in a lie.
The Lord also told Jeremiah to tell Hananiah; “Therefore thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will remove you from the face of the earth. This very year you shall die, because you have uttered rebellion against the Lord.’” And, In that same year, in the seventh month, the prophet Hananiah died.
The story of the false prophet Hananiah is a foretelling of the false prophet Joseph Smith, who also gave false prophesies in the name of the Lord, such as; the coming of the Lord in 56 years, building of a temple to be built in Zion, MS., the end of the United States and Congress overthrown, and thus he made this people trust in a lie. Soon after such false prophecy, Joseph Smith would die.
As mormons often say; ‘And it came to pass - Smith did die, not as a martyr, but as a false prophet’.
Hello Dan. Just curious. Do LDS get angry and rude with you when you talk to them and don't necessarily agree with their teaching, theology, or whatever?
My experience has been, they tend to get boxed in pretty quickly and don't have any real sound Biblical supported answers to their objections, but resort to false accusations and name calling pretty quickly.
I listened to the book on audio and really enjoyed it, very well written. The book’s sources were extensively provided.
I would definitely recommend this book! Lars Nielsen hit the nail on the head with this book. I found his approach very well balanced and honest toward the church.
The book reads well, but it is fiction. It is not well documented. There are no references for many of the major assertions. How can it be "well balanced and honest toward the church" when he falsely accuses them of trying to suppress Kircher's writings and Prof. Smith's lectures?
Thanks Dan no wonder I was so frustrated reading this book.
Well he and Joseph Smith have one thing in common. Passing off fiction as history!
Interesting that two of the biggest critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now can’t agree how the Book of Mormon came about. If it is such an easy fraud, shouldn’t this be a simple matter of the actual origins of the book? Shouldn’t there be wide consensus among the critics of some overarching theory, even if there remains disagreement over the details? Why is it that every so often, critics have to throw out all the old theories and start again? Or resurrect old discarded theories, such as the Spaulding/Rigdon theory. This is not proof that the Book of Mormon is true, but I find it interesting as a believer that Joseph was telling the truth. Not saying believers agree on all salient points.
I’ve also never heard any alternative theory to explain the origins of the BoM that answers all of the data points. Joseph Smith got many things right about the ancient world that he simply could not have known. I’ve never heard a critic adequately address these. They simply gloss over them and stick with the tried and true anti-Mormon critiques. You may be able to convince those looking for reasons to disbelieve, but this is not convincing to honest seekers of truth. I find the lack of a solid foundation for a naturalistic explanation of the BoM and the inability to explain the stronger points of the BoM to be very compelling for the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims.
There is wide agreement among those who have concluded that the BofM isn't real history. They agree on the disconfirming evidence.
The one thing that has remained constant is the historical and literary evidence against the BofM. There is disagreement about how the BofM came to be. Nielsen is in the minority among those who hold a naturalistic interpretation. Diverse opinions are going to exist no matter how good the evidence. Apologists can't agree about where BofM events took place. All the data points will never be answered. It's just the nature of large data sets. I believe that the most important ones have been answered with the demise of the Mound Builder Myth, literary and historical anachronisms, etc. Apologists have responded with limited geographies, redefining translation, bottleneck DNA, etc. If apologists were't able to ad hoc their way out of disconfirming evidence, their so-called evidence would be meaningless.
Thanks for the reply. I think you greatly overstate the strength of your case and undersell the strength of the evidence in support of the BoM. You can get away with this considering the population who dismiss the BoM is so much greater than those who believe, and the majority of those who dismiss it are woefully ignorant of the positive evidences of the BoM and therefore don’t know to push back on your arguments. Overstating your position is to be expected if you cannot accept a spiritual explanation. You are left to come up with another explanation, no matter how flimsy the foundation.
There are a lot of data points, some of which are hard to explain for believers, but I still have yet to see a critic honestly try to take the apologetic side seriously and grapple with the multitude of evidence. It is just casualty dismissed as non-sense and apologists desperately coming unsupported arguments. Critics just single out one thing and try to explain it away in isolation to the whole. The whole of the evidence to me is overwhelmingly in favor of the veracity of the Boom of Mormon.
"Joseph Smith got many things right about the ancient world that he simply could not have known. "
@@KendraAndTheLaw I’ll list a few to get you started. Many names that were thought to be made up have since been found to be authentic ancient Semitic or Egyptian names: Alma, Jershon, Sariah, Pahoran, Deseret, etc. There are no names that wouldn’t fit an ancient setting, like names that start with an F sound. Many Hebrewisms and old writing structures that appear in the text, such as simile curses, if/and statements, or chiasmus. Knowledge of olive tree cultivation. Many parallels to ancient practices, such as cutting off of arms to show your strength in battle, burying weapons of war as sign of peace, writing on large stones to tell your history(stela). Words of Isaiah that are not found in the Bible, but show up in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The consistencies of the description of Lehi’s travels with Middle East geography, including named places such as Nahom. And many little details, such as knowing that Nephi needed to make new arrows if he made a new bow. Or knowing to say a river of water as opposed to just saying, a river - consistent with middle eastern practices. Always stating going up to Jerusalem when entering Jerusalem and saying going down from Jerusalem when moving away.
@@tylerahlstrom4553 Quite a list. Let's start with chiasmus. Is that ok?
Welllllllll
Joseph did remove the original Isaiah passages and replaced them with the trickle down Bible versions in attempt to keep the whole issue from being exploited by lds haters
Dear Dan. You are perhaps unaware that you are the lone mormon without an almost endless capacity to imbibe bull***t. The author at hand is simply catering to all the rest.
All I can say is read the Nemenhah records, and follow chief Midegah and the birch bark scrolls.
Be more critical of your sources.
That's not an answer. That's a statement. Can you please show me about the nemenhah records and why chief midegah of the ojibwe nation and many others are getting together this month to share their records? Why doesn't the church like what they are doing? The nemenhah records (book, second edition) contains a lot of information the church doesn't like. Like women in the priesthood. Have you read the whole book? Tell me why the native Americans came to me in visions before, during, and after reading it? Why did christ appear to me and say, "Don't persecute my people, the nemenhah." I'm in Australia and have nothing to do with native Americans, so why did they want to visit me???
@@andrewreed4216 I think you should ask some who is interested in these records. I'm a scholar of early Mormon history.
Ooof. Rough. Guess you're being honest!
A difficult read. A thorough and poignant review.
Dan Vogel is dishonest....
Where did you ever get that idea from?
Attacking the person instead of the idea. What a childish behavior. Absolutely expected from emotionally stunted Mormons.
@@danvogel6802 you use anti mormon sources as facts by those who hated Mormons.. You make claims that are guesses or out and out wrong. Tell us when the first reports of the 1st vision were recorded. Tell us what the Urim and Thumim looked like.
@michaelparks5669 is that because Dan provided a well researched and cited review?
@@anthonycampbell4534 Today I just asked Dan about the First Vision and the Urim and Thumim and he deleted my comments. Thus he is not honest. His research is not well researched. He uses anti Mormons sources and ignores sources which controverts his claims. Example when are the oldest reports of the first vision? When and what and who are found in the first reports of the Urim and Thumim? His so called research excludes these reports. Thus he is not honest.
🍿📔 - Lets go, im ready! Thanks Dan!
I watched the Mormonish podcast that introduced his theory. I anticipated your review.
Thank you for your review.
Thank you Dan. I appreciate your work. ❤