Mike, this is NOT boring. It has been good all along. I really appreciate all the work you have put into searching for this information. Thanks John for giving him a platform and helping to create a visual to all the work.
I just recently discovered this amazing series. I was a convert to the church, active for 10 years. I have been inactive for 12 years now and am in the process of having my membership records officially removed from the church. I cannot begin to describe how much these episodes have helped me, validated what I have felt and went through. Thank you John & Mike, you both are incredible catalysts for awakening and healing for so many people.
This is what Sunday school would be if it were 100% honest. Thanks for your work Mike. Thanks John for your integrity and your platform. Great work guys. Another amazing episode!
I admire you guys a lot for your non-hostile, empowering yet non-enabling, messaging towards orthodox "TBM" members. "Informed Consent" is perfect and it shows that you are not here to be "anti-Mormon," but to make sure that members can access a more complete pool of information to be best equipped to decide how they invest their lives. That includes accountability and demanding appropriate boundary-setting for the Church, but also respect for those who've had a chance to fully weigh the info and have decided it's in line with their priorities to remain in the Church as active, "nuanced" members. This is much more productive than the "angry ExMormon" approach, which often plays into the Church's messaging about "miserable anti-Mormons." Thank you for your important work!
It's the same thing with "angry ex-Mormons" and "angry ex-Christian atheists." First of all, the terms are used to disparage critics - and disparage the criticism - by falsely portraying it as mere "anger." However, second, in regard to people who are *newly* ex-Mormon or ex-Christian there is an element of truth to it in regard to how people who raised in these religions very often feel a sense of having been deceived and lied to - and those feelings often come out in addition to their expression of the various criticisms they articulate. But in my experience, it's mostly the former: The "miserable" or "angry" is mostly just a bogus disparagement. I know, because I've been an ex-Christian for decades, and very, very often when I express straightforward factual, detailed critiques of various religious beliefs (such as when I'm engaged in discussions about science versus creationism pseudoscience, and the manner in which promoters of creationism pseudoscience adamantly refuse to correct their factually wrong claims even after the facts that contradict them have been pointed out to them personally) I'm accused of being such an "angry" person. Which is why I see how much of a silly rhetorical tactic it almost always is.
@@steveg1961 You're right. Especially in the sense that they use said perceived anger/biterness as a red herring to make it seem like the criticism itself isn't valid. I do think the approach new Exmos use often seems very bitter (it was for me) and Mormons honestly perceive it as such. Coming across calmly and earnestly seems to get more mileage in actually getting them to listen. However, yes, anger does not mean someone is wrong.
I think realistically there isn’t much anti Mormon content. It seems mostly that people learn the history and want people to know the history before the consent to giving their life and money to the church. I feel bad being labeled an anti Mormon when I care about Mormons a lot.
OK as someone who has exhausted his rage at the church's lies, I have to point out that 2:07:00 is exactly why John is so amazing. After over a decade of learning, discussing, reconciling with, rehashing, arguing, etc the church's fraudulent history and current behavior, he STILL has the ability to get fired up and channel his righteous anger and call for justice. To feel all of this after all these years and still remain objective and civil is really impressive and is likely a huge part of his success. Stay angry, John.
Ok Freddie boy we understand that you’re not man enough to live the gospel. You should be man enough to admit it though. Move on son just move on. You’re showing your ignorance.
Absolutely amazing. I'm learning far more in this series about the history of the church and than I ever did in the first 36 years of my life as a member of the LDS church. I left the church 5 months ago. I can't stop binge watching these because I'm finally learning truth rather than indoctrination. Thank you!
I enjoy these podcasts. I am not a Mormon neither have I ever been a Mormon. Even so, I like the discussion of Christian scriptures and early Mormon history. These discussions shine a light on the environment into which Joseph Smith was born and people who were attracted by his message.
I'm grateful I started watching people share their stories on Mormon Stories around a year ago and when I noticed a recent upload from LDS Discussions I watched it! These videos are very well done and the sources cited feel very fair and trustable. (I've listened to 18 LDS Discussions videos now - I went to the beginning after listening to a couple.)
I enjoy listening and learning about Mormonism. I have personally experienced many charlatans who have come in the name of the divine. Just awesome, to learn about the manipulative, tactical, psychology behind this stuff!!! 😉
I’m not LDS but I love this show. John, Mike and Nemo, you guys do an awesome job! The format is great also. You guys go into so much detail and thoroughly cover the material so well. You cover these sensitive topics with so much honesty and integrity. Thank you for what you do.
Just discovering these series, and I can’t get enough, I am learning more from this series than I did my whole life raised in the church and all those years of seminary and institute
I thought I had learned or heard of every piece...but I do have to admit I had never heard of the other peoples visions and their pamphlets and newspaper articles.... Thank you Mike & John for sharing this information and allowing the truth fall where it may.
I always appreciate it when talking about the founding of The Church that goes back to Revolutionary War times. I cannot understand its history without going back that far. The Burned Over District and the different sects that were formed in this area interest me very much. My family fled religious persecution in the 1600’s and came to that area. It makes total sense for Mormonism to rise there in my opinion
I can’t get enough of this show and I’m not even LDS. Am I weird for being fascinated? When will the Mormon Stories content be uploaded on Apple podcasts? John-your poor voice needs a break!
Same:)) Catholic from Europe here. I only saw few times young LDS missionaries in my hometown, and that’s all. I was not aware this is such a huge organization in US. Very strange and fascinating story of LDS church. But hey, Catholics in “purest” form are not so far away from this madness;)
No, you are not weird. The story of the early Mormon church is weird which explains why many people who are not connected with the church find its history so fascinating. The story of the Mormon church provides a window into the world of ordinary people in the United States in the early nineteenth century which would otherwise not be available.
Mike, at least for me, please know that this information is not dry or boring! I truly appreciate all the precise knowledge you possess. Together you and John do a terrific job of taking out the trash and leaving the pure truth. Although, sadly, the church's pure truth is pure fiction.
I cannot wait for your Priesthood restoration episode even though I've read that section on your website many times! This was an absolute shelf breaker for me.
My thoughts exactly. Love it when John jumps in and gives a clear narrative. Mike's reading and presentation sometimes loses a clear thread and big picture as to why the things he's saying matter.
I've always found it interesting that it's called the "First Vision" and not the "First Meeting". "Vision" in this case seems to denote that it was not a physical event, but rather was more like the notion of seeing things with "spiritual eyes" (also known as imagining something). The simple fact that there were literally no eyewitnesses to the event (and no local farmers reporting on seeing the woods glowing), means that the only choice anyone has is to either take Joseph Smith's word for it or not. And since Joseph Smith doesn't have an excellent track record for honesty and integrity, frequently changed his story and...importantly...did not even bother to make any significant noise about that huge experience until many years after it supposedly occurred, there is no way to distinguish it from a story being told by a fraudster. (Of course, I guess people can use the heads-we-win-tails-you-lose formula that the church prescribes for "knowing" things, i.e., if you pray and pray with a desire to "know" that it's true and get a good feeling, then it's true and if you get a bad feeling it's also true because the bad feeling is the devil trying to prevent you from "knowing" that it's true.)
This video was great, I remember in the 1980s , in the ensign , about the 9 versions of the first version. I couldn’t get my head around it. And I’d just came of my mission. It really disturbed about it. I later left the church. With my wife. The I found more lies about the church, on my mission we were taught about the Adam god doctrines, but didn’t believe it. I found about it again after we left the church. So we never went back.
Joseph Fielding Smith cut out the first First Vision from the journal so that Fawn Brodie would not discover it, once she had been granted permission to view it by her uncle David O. McKay. Joseph Fielding Smith did not want the truth to get out.
Great insight. It’s a method of telling the story that makes me avoid telling believing Mormons why I left the church. You (the believing Mormon) can answer one question, but all things taken into context, there’s no way to, with integrity, say the church’s foundational story is true. (John’s point at 2:05:00)
Trying to help people understand what’s going on, is like going back into a burning building to pull someone out, only to have them continue to punch you in the face, demanding evidence that the building is on fire, even after they admit they can see the flames. Unbelievable…
This episode along with the bishop panel episode completely shattered my childhood beliefs for the better. I don't know what I believe when it comes to God but I don't believe in organized religion after looking deeper into it. Thanks for this great breakdown
Mike, I love what you said about seeing this based on if the situation happened with another leader and then cast that same through process on the First Vision. We can all apply this to different part of life. I know I definitely can. I stopped and relistened to the words.
Johnny , I became your number one fan sir!! Your last comments hit so real!! That’s how I feel about Joseph Smith and the church. It damaged my soul and rewiring has been a long process! Thank you for your words and how you were able to tell his story without prejudice using facts instead anger. I’m sure though that like every ex Mormon, you’ve gone through your anger phase…
Thanks for this. It's of particular interest to me. I'm still PIMO, but one of the things fuelling a departure has been the belief that the missionaries, (and a couple of Gospel teachers) out right lied to me. I had a specific question that for me was a deal breaker. "Does the church also teach about the Trinity?" I was then amazed to be asked "What's that?" But after I'd explained, I was told "Oh yes.Definitely". It's interesting that they may not have lied, but believed one or all of the Visions
Just because the missionaries believe it's the Truth doesn't make it True. It's still a lie. A huge lie that they have been told is the truth. I am so sorry the missionaries found my mother over 40 years ago. So incredibly sorry 😪
The first vision timeline was the final straw that broke my shelf! Great job breaking it all down. There is still a lot of confusing trinitarian language in the Book of Mormon that has always been confusing. It all makes perfect sense now!
At times during my deconstruction I've felt crazy,. Between the apologists and the church you start to think 'were they being honest and I just didn't want to see it?' and then you hear stuff like this Hinckley quote and it's crushing and validating, no I'm not crazy. This was being fed to us as factual truth.
1:18:54 It’s so important to remember this! Joseph Smith lived during the Second Great Awakening. Many other people had visions and even founded their own religions based on what they saw and what they believed God told them.
The Bible clearly warns of us false prophets many times and not to trust those saying they have had visions or speak for God. Knowing that God warned us of this, I don’t understand how Joseph Smith got so many people to follow him. 🤔
This is not 'hateful' information. People on the defensive and uninterested in hearing anything critical will make this claim. They want you to be silent about any information that challenges their world view. Of course, these same people have no problems being critical of other world views different from their own. Am I getting this right? The church's claim is that JS, '...wrote or assigned scribes to write four different accounts of the vision.' Anyone find the part about assigning scribes TO WRITE four different accounts interesting? Am I missing something here?
This is exactly my thought as well. We're groomed in the church to believe anything remotely critical about the church is "hate." Yet we never apply that to anything outside of church. One of the biggest ah-ha moments after leaving the church is that faith is NOT a true principle. That was a huge realization for me.
I know we frequently do this in common speech but in this context let's be sure to remember that the burden of proof is on the claims that the First Vision happened, not on "the world" to uncover evidence that it didn't. We can straight up falsify the claim, which to me is stronger language than saying we have evidence. Maybe this seems subtle, but to me it's something more. Loved the bit on the New Testament changes JS was attempting in the 1830s, despite his supposed first-hand knowledge of them being separate beings from a decade prior. To me this fact, alone, is all I need to know to say we fail to accept the claim that the First Vision happened. And then we laugh because all this critical thinking wasn't really needed since they never backed up the claim the First Vision happened with any evidence. "What can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence." (RIP Hitchens)
Just now listening to all these and really appreciate the work you have put in. I like it when John recaps things because it helps explain what Mike is saying with all the technical details in a simple way. I felt like the Elizabeth Warren example wasn’t a good one. She was explaining reasons that, in the past, women have not had freedom to state. She could have both wanted to spend more time with family and been fired for being pregnant. Joseph Smith changing the number and context of what he saw is a bit different in that he was changing numbers and details. Elizabeth Warren didn’t say she was pregnant with twins at one time and one kid later or change the chronology.
It's interesting to read the BOM accounts that involve more than one member of the Godhead, because the different persons of the Godhead never appear at the same time. Like when Nephi is shown the vision of Jesus' birth, the spirit or God disappears first, and an angel becomes his new host in the vision. Or when Jesus appears to the nephites, the voice of the father stops before Jesus appears. Only one deity is ever presented to prevent an apparent plurality of Gods which would be anathema in traditional Christianity.
I sooooo enjoyed the incredible details and thorough investigative nature of so vastly more evidence in the honest bigger picture. Simply sensational! I would love to have you on my show....
Also, the relevance of the first vision to the development of the Book of Mormon and later to the ongoing development of the LDS ecclesiastical organization may not at first have been apparent to Joseph Smith or anyone else. I think initially Joseph Smith saw his first vision as a personal theophany related to his concerns about his own sins. I think the attempt to connect the first vision to the organization of the church is something that was indeed back formed because I don’t think its relevance to the church organization was apparent until it became for the Saints an evidence of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling.
@@krismurphy7711 The reason JS prayed in the grove was to ask God which church was right. The vision was given in response to this question. In the vision, JS was bound by an unseen evil power, which was banished by the appearance of a divine being. Nowhere in the versions of the First vision is this personage referred to as God the Father. It could have been God the Mother, or more likely the archangel Michael, whose traditional role is to cast out the devil. After that, the personage announces Jesus as “my beloved son,” which could have rightly been uttered by the Father, the Mother, or by Michael (Adam). Jesus appears and forgives JS’s sins. I have given serious consideration to Don Bradley’s speculation that what we have in the First Vision theophany is the actual endowment of JS, which does not become clear to him except over the next 24 years. This slow coming to terms with the meaning of a vision is reported by some Christian mystics. JS is told that he will be known for good and evil. This prediction applies to the movement he founded. It cannot be avoided. For the Church is not merely an instrument of salvation, but the object of salvation. Its apostolate share with JS the affliction of being rightly spoken of as both “good and evil,” for the apostles, like JS and the Church, are not the source of salvation but its object.
I really enjoy the channel and say with all due respect. Is there a chance for shorter clips? I don’t always have time to sit for 1-2hr and listen to the whole story. Other podcasters I watch will take some short highlight clips from their long episodes for viewers to watch. Just my 2 cents. Thanks!
According to the 1832 account, Smith has already studied the matter and has concluded that the true church does not exist. He does not go to ask about the true church but goes to pray for forgiveness of sins and that is what he gets from “the Lord”. In the 1838 version, he has a completely different reason to pray, to find the true church. Quite a large contradiction before you ever get to the issue of who appears in the vision !
After reading Carl Jung, I suspect that recollecting a vision is rather like recollecting a dream: the recollection may improve rather than diminish over time because recollecting a vision or a dream is not like recollecting a historical event. I think this must be considered in the analysis of the changes over time in Joseph Smith’s versions of his first vision.
Why? Jung's claims aren't supported. He's kind of a crackpot. Also, the way human memory works (including of dreams) is that when it's re-collected it's re-written. The recollection isn't improving. It's being edited. Biologically. Memories of all kinds warp and drift over time. They do not get more accurate.
@@paultoscano7903 The collective unconscious describes a primitive form of meme theory at best and is just wishful magical thinking at worst. That's not ad hominem. I'm saying he's a crackpot because his ideas are bad, not that his ideas are bad because he's a crackpot. You don't get to defend Jung and talk about credibility in the same sentence. Engage with the scientific method more and navel gazing less.
I have asked this rhetorical question in comments before: How much faith is necessary to accept all of this? My answer: Too much. There is no way God can expect anyone to accept all of this on faith...
“Mike” is interesting and this informs is important but it’s Interesting to hear the difference between him and Dr Murphy who is an anthropology expert. “Mike” is good at compiling information and saying over and over whatever thing is a “big deal.” Both perspectives are important.
Thanks John and Mike It’s articulate and to the point. Wonder what Hinkley would say if you could bring him back to life? Would he propagate the lie? I had a distasteful encounter with his wife and daughter a few years ago that still stings.
So I'm reading the 1832 version of the vision and the preamble written by Frederick Williams says "A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience1 and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God" Can you help me understand why it would say that if the church at the time was teaching trinity as doctrine at the time?
Question: in the 1832 account does JS ever state this is the 1st time he has written the story down? If he didn't could there an earlier account you just don't know about? Maybe in a vault somewhere?
Also, if it were in a vault somewhere, then it's not helpful or supportive, otherwise, it would not be in the vault. 🙃 So it wouldn't be possible to help the Church with it anyway...
@@amazinmaven I just find it surprising that he had these “ visions “ in the 1820s but recorded nothing for 12 years. These people were constantly journaling, writing letters, corresponding, publishing stuff in papers. You would think seeing God would be worthy of a paragraph or two. It just doesn’t seem logical to my suspicious mind :)
@@cmotherofpirl Exactly! I just discovered there were 4-5 different versions! I’ve been a TBM for 65 years. I am devouring everything I can find and read. Nevertheless to late to find truth.
@@patricianoel7782 No! It's never too late. How many people do you think are in the same boat but have just given up because, “well, I've come this far and invested this much.”
It will be nice if in General conference they tell the truth I know for sure many LDS will stay with the church…. They just love to belong to this organization no matter what.
Will you two or one of the two of you make a comprehensive illustrated handbook like the ones in Sunday school by the church, but with all the proof of debunking the church. Something we can use as a reference guide when taking to TBMs or for TBMs to start reading thinking it is church approved and then they’ll start to get into the stuff. As much as possible church approved sources. I am not good at organizing and remembering all the details when i am trying to talk to them. It would be such a life changing book. Or even book series if needed. Do you get what I’m saying? Like part reference guide part historically correct versions of the story. Similar to the i think its the Naked Mormonism podcast tells the story including all of the things changed and completely omitted. Especially about Josephs history that we dont know about. I had thought about awhile back doing a movie showing the real way the church was founded with like different names and different church names to show that if they heard that story about another cult they would think it was crazy. But then at the end reveal who each character really was and all that. Let’s do this!!
My friend finally got the courage to tell her husband no to the Mormon church it was so hard for her. The husband's family won't take it well and he accused her of apostasy. I only wish I could send these videos to her husband, maybe he would change his mind and not make this the end of the world scenario for her
This show is hysterical! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better smoke and mirror show! If I had a glimmer of hope for the book of Abraham, it’s now gone, is anybody really buying this? If so, I really need to get a mailing list for all the Mormons, I’d like to see how many bridges I can sell in Brooklyn. This guy is selling a book about the truth of Abraham? Could I get in line now to NOT buy it? I love watching Saints Unscripted, it’s like watching a train wreck, I can’t take my eyes off of it!
Don't forget that brothers Joseph and Hyrum would bury "treasure" and then take money from farmers, etc, to "discover" riches with dowsing rods. Scoundrels from the get go!
A commonly heard phrase in the Church is that ultimately "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ," meaning that every person on earth will one day become a member of the Church. Another commonly repeated trope is that when temples are built in every country, that is when the second coming will happen. Given all of this info. it makes me think none of that will happen.
Question.... Why is The First Vision so low on the list of covered topics? I'm trying to put the peices together myself and I thought that the first vision would be somewhere near the top since it's so important to the narrative of the church.
I am not a Warren fan, but we have heard from plenty of people, especially politicians, but when they get fired, they say they actually quit so they could spend time with family. Maybe she was embarrassed she was fired, especially in a book that is supposed to show her strengths.
I would in 1835 Smith had the papyrus, and it showed visibly in picture format the three gods in one. It was also consistent that Smith would change his view of God now separating the persons of God. I have a podcast on this. More consistent evidence in line with what you have so masterfully presented here.
Watching this as a mainline protestant is so weird lol it’s like Joseph Smith had a list of heresies and just went on to pick the ones he liked most to be a part of his new religion
This is a 2 hour discussion about how maybe, just maybe, God and Jesus did not visit the woods in New York State in the 1820s. You don't really need to painstakingly delve into the nitty gritty details about the inconsistent story line. You can actually dismiss the whole tale outright because it's cartoonishly bonkers.
Mormonism still baffles me as the most Hermetic project ever. Because at church, stories about Joseph Smith are taught to the faithful as spiritual lessons. On this side of the church, actual history about Joseph Smith teaches spiritual lessons about how power can corrupt men such as Joseph. Inside the Church, irrational perfectionism and pseudo-righteousness, outside of the Church, sincere grasp toward righteousness based on the unbiased rational pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness. I don't think I will ever fully understand this strange seemingly coincidental duality.
I saw multiple accounts that don’t fit the 1832 timeline. On lds discussions there was no source for the trinity comment (nor could I find it in the original document). That original document (from Evening and Morning Star), in 1832, as well as others in 1831 seem to show that Joseph had visions (with Rigdon) about God and Jesus being separate.
In other words, the timeline of Joseph’s theology changing to a pluralistic God belief in 1835, which would lead to edits in the vision story and Book of Mormon, doesn’t really add up. Correct me if I’m wrong though.
There is a response on fair Mormon about the ripping out of the pages. Explanation is as vague as can be, "we don't know why, but there wasn't anything shady going on, we promise 😉"
So being a non-mormon, I enjoy listening to these lectures. I have a few comments regarding the others but for this episode, I am a little confused or baffled at the section around the 50min mark regarding trinitarianism, modalism, oneness etc. The statement of the Three Witnesses is shown as if it is an aberration from the norm, but 2 Nephi 31:21, Mormon 7:7, D&C 20:28 all claim the exact same. What am I missing here? Even in the proper Christian Scripture, Christ speaks of He and the Father being one, but clearly is not saying one person, but one God: meaning eternal/uncreated, shared will, shared nature. The aberration seems to be in the statement speaking of the Father and Son being God but no mention of the Spirit, which likely follows into the trap of the JWs in denying the Personhood of the Spirit. Again in Scripture the Spirit is one who is sent by the Son, who eternally proceeds from the Father, who hovers over the water of creation (in Genesis) and the water of new creation (incarnation of Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary), and thus in each instance is described as a personal being, not simply an energy of the Father or Son.
Do we know the dates that Joseph’s mother and sisters joined their prospective church’s? This should pinpoint the dates of the revivals. Also I think I remember in Lucy’s biography that she and her daughters joined after Alvin’s death. Not sure what those years are specifically though.
1:49:58 Is it true that in Nauvoo, William Law was later accusing Joseph of having multiple people killed, including poisoning of Bishop Partridge, marring his under age daughters, then embezzling from his estate?
1:37:00 I thought it was stated in Insiders View of Mormon Origins that a Methodist leader said Joseph helped them sort out a lot of theological issues, etc. Clearly he was well-versed and affiliated with the religious realm and not some clueless farm boy that's portrayed in church videos.
1:54:44 now I'm wondering if Joseph Smith had lived longer if he would have eventually been claiming that he was the son of God or something to that effect. Why not? His claims to divinity got grander and grander throughout his young life and he was always seeking more power. Seems like the logical next step and a lot of people have gone down this road.
Mike, this is NOT boring. It has been good all along. I really appreciate all the work you have put into searching for this information. Thanks John for giving him a platform and helping to create a visual to all the work.
… and for pointing out how you’d be incredulous hearing this about another religion.
Mike is the GOAT.
Totally agree! Ive never been a mormon, but this content and information has been so fascinating. A big thank you to Mike and John for this series.
I just recently discovered this amazing series. I was a convert to the church, active for 10 years. I have been inactive for 12 years now and am in the process of having my membership records officially removed from the church. I cannot begin to describe how much these episodes have helped me, validated what I have felt and went through. Thank you John & Mike, you both are incredible catalysts for awakening and healing for so many people.
This is what Sunday school would be if it were 100% honest. Thanks for your work Mike. Thanks John for your integrity and your platform. Great work guys. Another amazing episode!
I admire you guys a lot for your non-hostile, empowering yet non-enabling, messaging towards orthodox "TBM" members. "Informed Consent" is perfect and it shows that you are not here to be "anti-Mormon," but to make sure that members can access a more complete pool of information to be best equipped to decide how they invest their lives. That includes accountability and demanding appropriate boundary-setting for the Church, but also respect for those who've had a chance to fully weigh the info and have decided it's in line with their priorities to remain in the Church as active, "nuanced" members. This is much more productive than the "angry ExMormon" approach, which often plays into the Church's messaging about "miserable anti-Mormons." Thank you for your important work!
It's the same thing with "angry ex-Mormons" and "angry ex-Christian atheists." First of all, the terms are used to disparage critics - and disparage the criticism - by falsely portraying it as mere "anger." However, second, in regard to people who are *newly* ex-Mormon or ex-Christian there is an element of truth to it in regard to how people who raised in these religions very often feel a sense of having been deceived and lied to - and those feelings often come out in addition to their expression of the various criticisms they articulate. But in my experience, it's mostly the former: The "miserable" or "angry" is mostly just a bogus disparagement. I know, because I've been an ex-Christian for decades, and very, very often when I express straightforward factual, detailed critiques of various religious beliefs (such as when I'm engaged in discussions about science versus creationism pseudoscience, and the manner in which promoters of creationism pseudoscience adamantly refuse to correct their factually wrong claims even after the facts that contradict them have been pointed out to them personally) I'm accused of being such an "angry" person. Which is why I see how much of a silly rhetorical tactic it almost always is.
@@steveg1961 You're right. Especially in the sense that they use said perceived anger/biterness as a red herring to make it seem like the criticism itself isn't valid. I do think the approach new Exmos use often seems very bitter (it was for me) and Mormons honestly perceive it as such. Coming across calmly and earnestly seems to get more mileage in actually getting them to listen. However, yes, anger does not mean someone is wrong.
I think realistically there isn’t much anti Mormon content. It seems mostly that people learn the history and want people to know the history before the consent to giving their life and money to the church. I feel bad being labeled an anti Mormon when I care about Mormons a lot.
OK as someone who has exhausted his rage at the church's lies, I have to point out that 2:07:00 is exactly why John is so amazing. After over a decade of learning, discussing, reconciling with, rehashing, arguing, etc the church's fraudulent history and current behavior, he STILL has the ability to get fired up and channel his righteous anger and call for justice. To feel all of this after all these years and still remain objective and civil is really impressive and is likely a huge part of his success. Stay angry, John.
Ok Freddie boy we understand that you’re not man enough to live the gospel. You should be man enough to admit it though. Move on son just move on. You’re showing your ignorance.
He has a great balance of anger and peace about all of this stuff.
Absolutely amazing. I'm learning far more in this series about the history of the church and than I ever did in the first 36 years of my life as a member of the LDS church. I left the church 5 months ago. I can't stop binge watching these because I'm finally learning truth rather than indoctrination. Thank you!
I enjoy these podcasts. I am not a Mormon neither have I ever been a Mormon. Even so, I like the discussion of Christian scriptures and early Mormon history. These discussions shine a light on the environment into which Joseph Smith was born and people who were attracted by his message.
I'm grateful I started watching people share their stories on Mormon Stories around a year ago and when I noticed a recent upload from LDS Discussions I watched it! These videos are very well done and the sources cited feel very fair and trustable. (I've listened to 18 LDS Discussions videos now - I went to the beginning after listening to a couple.)
I enjoy listening and learning about Mormonism.
I have personally experienced many charlatans who have come in the name of the divine.
Just awesome, to learn about the manipulative, tactical, psychology behind this stuff!!! 😉
I’m not LDS but I love this show. John, Mike and Nemo, you guys do an awesome job! The format is great also. You guys go into so much detail and thoroughly cover the material so well. You cover these sensitive topics with so much honesty and integrity. Thank you for what you do.
Thank you John as always for giving the big picture and a coherent narrative when needed. You two are a great team.
Just discovering these series, and I can’t get enough, I am learning more from this series than I did my whole life raised in the church and all those years of seminary and institute
I thought I had learned or heard of every piece...but I do have to admit I had never heard of the other peoples visions and their pamphlets and newspaper articles.... Thank you Mike & John for sharing this information and allowing the truth fall where it may.
I had not heard that before either 😱
I always appreciate it when talking about the founding of The Church that goes back to Revolutionary War times. I cannot understand its history without going back that far. The Burned Over District and the different sects that were formed in this area interest me very much. My family fled religious persecution in the 1600’s and came to that area. It makes total sense for Mormonism to rise there in my opinion
Mormonism is truly a fascinating cross-section of Americana.
I can’t get enough of this show and I’m not even LDS. Am I weird for being fascinated? When will the Mormon Stories content be uploaded on Apple podcasts? John-your poor voice needs a break!
Mormon history is also history. I don’t think you have to be Mormon to find it interesting. Welcome!
Same:)) Catholic from Europe here. I only saw few times young LDS missionaries in my hometown, and that’s all. I was not aware this is such a huge organization in US. Very strange and fascinating story of LDS church. But hey, Catholics in “purest” form are not so far away from this madness;)
Same here. I think it’s just interest in the birth and evolution of a relatively “new” religion and the cognitive dissonance that goes with it.
Same here. Atheist from Europe here!
No, you are not weird. The story of the early Mormon church is weird which explains why many people who are not connected with the church find its history so fascinating. The story of the Mormon church provides a window into the world of ordinary people in the United States in the early nineteenth century which would otherwise not be available.
The artwork of the 9 different versions is very interesting. I've got to let that sink in.
46 yrs in the church. This is the first time I have EVER heard there are multiple versions of the first vision.
This is super interesting and informative. Mike and john thanks for creating a plataform to share this. You guys are wonderful
Mike, at least for me, please know that this information is not dry or boring! I truly appreciate all the precise knowledge you possess. Together you and John do a terrific job of taking out the trash and leaving the pure truth. Although, sadly, the church's pure truth is pure fiction.
I cannot wait for your Priesthood restoration episode even though I've read that section on your website many times! This was an absolute shelf breaker for me.
It made me want to flip tables.
so much Info, my head is spinning! Mike is brilliant. and thanks, John, for recaps, clarifications and context. great tag team.
My thoughts exactly. Love it when John jumps in and gives a clear narrative. Mike's reading and presentation sometimes loses a clear thread and big picture as to why the things he's saying matter.
This series is amazing. It really makes it easy in as much as it allows us to focus on the topics and not have to and find all of the information.
I’m not LDS but I’m riveted by every episode!
I've always found it interesting that it's called the "First Vision" and not the "First Meeting". "Vision" in this case seems to denote that it was not a physical event, but rather was more like the notion of seeing things with "spiritual eyes" (also known as imagining something). The simple fact that there were literally no eyewitnesses to the event (and no local farmers reporting on seeing the woods glowing), means that the only choice anyone has is to either take Joseph Smith's word for it or not. And since Joseph Smith doesn't have an excellent track record for honesty and integrity, frequently changed his story and...importantly...did not even bother to make any significant noise about that huge experience until many years after it supposedly occurred, there is no way to distinguish it from a story being told by a fraudster. (Of course, I guess people can use the heads-we-win-tails-you-lose formula that the church prescribes for "knowing" things, i.e., if you pray and pray with a desire to "know" that it's true and get a good feeling, then it's true and if you get a bad feeling it's also true because the bad feeling is the devil trying to prevent you from "knowing" that it's true.)
This video was great, I remember in the 1980s , in the ensign , about the 9 versions of the first version. I couldn’t get my head around it. And I’d just came of my mission. It really disturbed about it. I later left the church. With my wife. The I found more lies about the church, on my mission we were taught about the Adam god doctrines, but didn’t believe it. I found about it again after we left the church. So we never went back.
Joseph Fielding Smith cut out the first First Vision from the journal so that Fawn Brodie would not discover it, once she had been granted permission to view it by her uncle David O. McKay. Joseph Fielding Smith did not want the truth to get out.
Great insight. It’s a method of telling the story that makes me avoid telling believing Mormons why I left the church. You (the believing Mormon) can answer one question, but all things taken into context, there’s no way to, with integrity, say the church’s foundational story is true. (John’s point at 2:05:00)
Trying to help people understand what’s going on, is like going back into a burning building to pull someone out, only to have them continue to punch you in the face, demanding evidence that the building is on fire, even after they admit they can see the flames.
Unbelievable…
This episode along with the bishop panel episode completely shattered my childhood beliefs for the better. I don't know what I believe when it comes to God but I don't believe in organized religion after looking deeper into it. Thanks for this great breakdown
Mike, I love what you said about seeing this based on if the situation happened with another leader and then cast that same through process on the First Vision. We can all apply this to different part of life. I know I definitely can. I stopped and relistened to the words.
Johnny , I became your number one fan sir!! Your last comments hit so real!!
That’s how I feel about Joseph Smith and the church.
It damaged my soul and rewiring has been a long process!
Thank you for your words and how you were able to tell his story without prejudice using facts instead anger.
I’m sure though that like every ex Mormon, you’ve gone through your anger phase…
I hope they talk about Mormon Chapter 1 where Mormon recounts his own version of the First Vision. This account oftentimes is overlooked.
Mormon 1:15
@@Gusto08 are hoy sure you have the correct time stamp? I couldn’t find any reference to the original comment at the 1:15 time stamp.
@@Thriving2015 That’s not a time stamp. It’s Mormon ch 1 v 15
Thanks for this. It's of particular interest to me. I'm still PIMO, but one of the things fuelling a departure has been the belief that the missionaries, (and a couple of Gospel teachers) out right lied to me.
I had a specific question that for me was a deal breaker. "Does the church also teach about the Trinity?" I was then amazed to be asked "What's that?" But after I'd explained, I was told "Oh yes.Definitely".
It's interesting that they may not have lied, but believed one or all of the Visions
Just because the missionaries believe it's the Truth doesn't make it True. It's still a lie. A huge lie that they have been told is the truth. I am so sorry the missionaries found my mother over 40 years ago. So incredibly sorry 😪
@LDSDiscussions you deserve a monument. How i wish that my Mormon family could watch these videos
The first vision timeline was the final straw that broke my shelf! Great job breaking it all down.
There is still a lot of confusing trinitarian language in the Book of Mormon that has always been confusing. It all makes perfect sense now!
Thank you so much Mike for all of your research! It has helped me immensely
"Without our history, we are nothing!" ~GBH
Uncomfortable prophecies are past prophets speaking as men. What a dilemma.
At times during my deconstruction I've felt crazy,. Between the apologists and the church you start to think 'were they being honest and I just didn't want to see it?' and then you hear stuff like this Hinckley quote and it's crushing and validating, no I'm not crazy. This was being fed to us as factual truth.
Thank you for sharing your findings, Mike. Very much appreciate it.
1:18:54 It’s so important to remember this! Joseph Smith lived during the Second Great Awakening. Many other people had visions and even founded their own religions based on what they saw and what they believed God told them.
It’s incredible that anyone other than children can believe in the truth claims of the LDS!
It's because Mormons are raised to be infantalized and dependent-on-the-church adults.
The Bible clearly warns of us false prophets many times and not to trust those saying they have had visions or speak for God. Knowing that God warned us of this, I don’t understand how Joseph Smith got so many people to follow him. 🤔
Agreed!!
This is not 'hateful' information. People on the defensive and uninterested in hearing anything critical will make this claim. They want you to be silent about any information that challenges their world view. Of course, these same people have no problems being critical of other world views different from their own. Am I getting this right? The church's claim is that JS, '...wrote or assigned scribes to write four different accounts of the vision.' Anyone find the part about assigning scribes TO WRITE four different accounts interesting? Am I missing something here?
This is exactly my thought as well. We're groomed in the church to believe anything remotely critical about the church is "hate." Yet we never apply that to anything outside of church. One of the biggest ah-ha moments after leaving the church is that faith is NOT a true principle. That was a huge realization for me.
another great episode, shows smith's m.o. and with the timeline of events, showing good reason for changes and added grandeur to each retelling
This was awesome. Thank you Mike and John!
Great pod cast
I'm not mormon or Christian, but i love to learn about LDS history. It's very interesting to say the least hehe
Great work. Growing up LDS I don't think I really read The Book of Mormon. I didn't do the high school seminary.
I know we frequently do this in common speech but in this context let's be sure to remember that the burden of proof is on the claims that the First Vision happened, not on "the world" to uncover evidence that it didn't. We can straight up falsify the claim, which to me is stronger language than saying we have evidence. Maybe this seems subtle, but to me it's something more.
Loved the bit on the New Testament changes JS was attempting in the 1830s, despite his supposed first-hand knowledge of them being separate beings from a decade prior. To me this fact, alone, is all I need to know to say we fail to accept the claim that the First Vision happened.
And then we laugh because all this critical thinking wasn't really needed since they never backed up the claim the First Vision happened with any evidence. "What can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence." (RIP Hitchens)
Ah but TBMs have the ultimate trump card that ends any debate, which is a "feeling" that it's true. It's unfalsifiable.
Very good video! I loved the historical context part where Smith needing something big to keep the con going and keep him as the one who sees God etc.
Just now listening to all these and really appreciate the work you have put in. I like it when John recaps things because it helps explain what Mike is saying with all the technical details in a simple way. I felt like the Elizabeth Warren example wasn’t a good one. She was explaining reasons that, in the past, women have not had freedom to state. She could have both wanted to spend more time with family and been fired for being pregnant. Joseph Smith changing the number and context of what he saw is a bit different in that he was changing numbers and details. Elizabeth Warren didn’t say she was pregnant with twins at one time and one kid later or change the chronology.
It's interesting to read the BOM accounts that involve more than one member of the Godhead, because the different persons of the Godhead never appear at the same time. Like when Nephi is shown the vision of Jesus' birth, the spirit or God disappears first, and an angel becomes his new host in the vision. Or when Jesus appears to the nephites, the voice of the father stops before Jesus appears. Only one deity is ever presented to prevent an apparent plurality of Gods which would be anathema in traditional Christianity.
I sooooo enjoyed the incredible details and thorough investigative nature of so vastly more evidence in the honest bigger picture. Simply sensational! I would love to have you on my show....
🤎I was jonesing this awesome sauce series for the past week or 2. Yay it's back!
😆
54:20 That was the first time I've heard that. It's another solid connection that the dominant First Vision narrative never happened.
History vs narrative.
I found this episode very interesting. Thanks a lot!
54:23 ***VERY AWESOME, Thanks Mike!!!***
Also, the relevance of the first vision to the development of the Book of Mormon and later to the ongoing development of the LDS ecclesiastical organization may not at first have been apparent to Joseph Smith or anyone else. I think initially Joseph Smith saw his first vision as a personal theophany related to his concerns about his own sins. I think the attempt to connect the first vision to the organization of the church is something that was indeed back formed because I don’t think its relevance to the church organization was apparent until it became for the Saints an evidence of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling.
@@krismurphy7711 The reason JS prayed in the grove was to ask God which church was right. The vision was given in response to this question. In the vision, JS was bound by an unseen evil power, which was banished by the appearance of a divine being. Nowhere in the versions of the First vision is this personage referred to as God the Father. It could have been God the Mother, or more likely the archangel Michael, whose traditional role is to cast out the devil. After that, the personage announces Jesus as “my beloved son,” which could have rightly been uttered by the Father, the Mother, or by Michael (Adam). Jesus appears and forgives JS’s sins.
I have given serious consideration to Don Bradley’s speculation that what we have in the First Vision theophany is the actual endowment of JS, which does not become clear to him except over the next 24 years. This slow coming to terms with the meaning of a vision is reported by some Christian mystics.
JS is told that he will be known for good and evil. This prediction applies to the movement he founded. It cannot be avoided. For the Church is not merely an instrument of salvation, but the object of salvation. Its apostolate share with JS the affliction of being rightly spoken of as both “good and evil,” for the apostles, like JS and the Church, are not the source of salvation but its object.
@@paultoscano7903 The circular reasoning in this comment makes me dizzy enough to produce my own First Vision.
I really enjoy the channel and say with all due respect. Is there a chance for shorter clips? I don’t always have time to sit for 1-2hr and listen to the whole story. Other podcasters I watch will take some short highlight clips from their long episodes for viewers to watch. Just my 2 cents. Thanks!
According to the 1832 account, Smith has already studied the matter and has concluded that the true church does not exist. He does not go to ask about the true church but goes to pray for forgiveness of sins and that is what he gets from “the Lord”. In the 1838 version, he has a completely different reason to pray, to find the true church. Quite a large contradiction before you ever get to the issue of who appears in the vision !
After reading Carl Jung, I suspect that recollecting a vision is rather like recollecting a dream: the recollection may improve rather than diminish over time because recollecting a vision or a dream is not like recollecting a historical event. I think this must be considered in the analysis of the changes over time in Joseph Smith’s versions of his first vision.
Why?
Jung's claims aren't supported. He's kind of a crackpot.
Also, the way human memory works (including of dreams) is that when it's re-collected it's re-written. The recollection isn't improving. It's being edited. Biologically. Memories of all kinds warp and drift over time. They do not get more accurate.
@@zacheryeckard3051 Anyone who dismisses Carl Jung as a crackpot is not credible. Ad hominem attacks are neither consider opinions nor facts.
@@paultoscano7903 The collective unconscious describes a primitive form of meme theory at best and is just wishful magical thinking at worst.
That's not ad hominem.
I'm saying he's a crackpot because his ideas are bad, not that his ideas are bad because he's a crackpot.
You don't get to defend Jung and talk about credibility in the same sentence.
Engage with the scientific method more and navel gazing less.
I have asked this rhetorical question in comments before: How much faith is necessary to accept all of this? My answer: Too much. There is no way God can expect anyone to accept all of this on faith...
May i ask this if God is so mighty and glorious that he couldn't appear face to face with moses what made Joseph Smith so special
Great video! Loving this series!
“Mike” is interesting and this informs is important but it’s Interesting to hear the difference between him and Dr Murphy who is an anthropology expert. “Mike” is good at compiling information and saying over and over whatever thing is a “big deal.” Both perspectives are important.
Thank you
Thanks John and Mike
It’s articulate and to the point.
Wonder what Hinkley would say if you could bring him back to life? Would he propagate the lie?
I had a distasteful encounter with his wife and daughter a few years ago that still stings.
So I'm reading the 1832 version of the vision and the preamble written by Frederick Williams says "A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience1 and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God"
Can you help me understand why it would say that if the church at the time was teaching trinity as doctrine at the time?
I don't know what's wrong with me, but i can not find episodes 11-16! Can anyone help me?
The angel who visited joseph was Nephi not Moroni. Church changed it later after Joseph died
Question: in the 1832 account does JS ever state this is the 1st time he has written the story down? If he didn't could there an earlier account you just don't know about? Maybe in a vault somewhere?
Also, if it were in a vault somewhere, then it's not helpful or supportive, otherwise, it would not be in the vault. 🙃 So it wouldn't be possible to help the Church with it anyway...
@@amazinmaven I just find it surprising that he had these “ visions “ in the 1820s but recorded nothing for 12 years. These people were constantly journaling, writing letters, corresponding, publishing stuff in papers. You would think seeing God would be worthy of a paragraph or two. It just doesn’t seem logical to my suspicious mind :)
@@cmotherofpirl Exactly! I just discovered there were 4-5 different versions! I’ve been a TBM for 65 years. I am devouring everything I can find and read. Nevertheless to late to find truth.
@@patricianoel7782 Better late than never. Glad you’re waking up to the scam of Joe Smith!
@@patricianoel7782 No! It's never too late. How many people do you think are in the same boat but have just given up because, “well, I've come this far and invested this much.”
"A flame of fire" As opposed to what? A flame of water? 😂😂
It will be nice if in General conference they tell the truth I know for sure many LDS will stay with the church…. They just love to belong to this organization no matter what.
Will you two or one of the two of you make a comprehensive illustrated handbook like the ones in Sunday school by the church, but with all the proof of debunking the church. Something we can use as a reference guide when taking to TBMs or for TBMs to start reading thinking it is church approved and then they’ll start to get into the stuff. As much as possible church approved sources. I am not good at organizing and remembering all the details when i am trying to talk to them. It would be such a life changing book. Or even book series if needed. Do you get what I’m saying? Like part reference guide part historically correct versions of the story. Similar to the i think its the Naked Mormonism podcast tells the story including all of the things changed and completely omitted. Especially about Josephs history that we dont know about. I had thought about awhile back doing a movie showing the real way the church was founded with like different names and different church names to show that if they heard that story about another cult they would think it was crazy. But then at the end reveal who each character really was and all that. Let’s do this!!
My friend finally got the courage to tell her husband no to the Mormon church it was so hard for her. The husband's family won't take it well and he accused her of apostasy. I only wish I could send these videos to her husband, maybe he would change his mind and not make this the end of the world scenario for her
This show is hysterical! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better smoke and mirror show! If I had a glimmer of hope for the book of Abraham, it’s now gone, is anybody really buying this? If so, I really need to get a mailing list for all the Mormons, I’d like to see how many bridges I can sell in Brooklyn. This guy is selling a book about the truth of Abraham? Could I get in line now to NOT buy it? I love watching Saints Unscripted, it’s like watching a train wreck, I can’t take my eyes off of it!
Has anyone heard anything about a 10th version of the first vision? There was mention of 10 versions on another site.
There is a church video that claims to have elements of all 10 versions of the First Vision.
Don't forget that brothers Joseph and Hyrum would bury "treasure" and then take money from farmers, etc, to "discover" riches with dowsing rods. Scoundrels from the get go!
A commonly heard phrase in the Church is that ultimately "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ," meaning that every person on earth will one day become a member of the Church. Another commonly repeated trope is that when temples are built in every country, that is when the second coming will happen. Given all of this info. it makes me think none of that will happen.
Question.... Why is The First Vision so low on the list of covered topics? I'm trying to put the peices together myself and I thought that the first vision would be somewhere near the top since it's so important to the narrative of the church.
I am not a Warren fan, but we have heard from plenty of people, especially politicians, but when they get fired, they say they actually quit so they could spend time with family. Maybe she was embarrassed she was fired, especially in a book that is supposed to show her strengths.
Fantastic data points
I would in 1835 Smith had the papyrus, and it showed visibly in picture format the three gods in one. It was also consistent that Smith would change his view of God now separating the persons of God. I have a podcast on this. More consistent evidence in line with what you have so masterfully presented here.
These podcasts are very informative and well done, thank you!
Anyone have the video where the incorporate all the visions as a singular account?
Where can I find the image of the different accounts of the first vision.
images.app.goo.gl/Eg8Xx7K55SjgrYYZ7
Love this series. Where can the Luke - jst be found?
In the footnotes of the king James Bible
Watching this as a mainline protestant is so weird lol it’s like Joseph Smith had a list of heresies and just went on to pick the ones he liked most to be a part of his new religion
This is a 2 hour discussion about how maybe, just maybe, God and Jesus did not visit the woods in New York State in the 1820s. You don't really need to painstakingly delve into the nitty gritty details about the inconsistent story line. You can actually dismiss the whole tale outright because it's cartoonishly bonkers.
@@krismurphy7711 : Have you completely left the LDS?🤔
Move on, buddy. It's a big internet.
Mormonism still baffles me as the most Hermetic project ever. Because at church, stories about Joseph Smith are taught to the faithful as spiritual lessons. On this side of the church, actual history about Joseph Smith teaches spiritual lessons about how power can corrupt men such as Joseph. Inside the Church, irrational perfectionism and pseudo-righteousness, outside of the Church, sincere grasp toward righteousness based on the unbiased rational pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness. I don't think I will ever fully understand this strange seemingly coincidental duality.
I saw multiple accounts that don’t fit the 1832 timeline. On lds discussions there was no source for the trinity comment (nor could I find it in the original document).
That original document (from Evening and Morning Star), in 1832, as well as others in 1831 seem to show that Joseph had visions (with Rigdon) about God and Jesus being separate.
In other words, the timeline of Joseph’s theology changing to a pluralistic God belief in 1835, which would lead to edits in the vision story and Book of Mormon, doesn’t really add up. Correct me if I’m wrong though.
That Early Morning Star article was later turned into D&C 76:20 saying they saw the Father and the Son in 1832
There is a response on fair Mormon about the ripping out of the pages. Explanation is as vague as can be, "we don't know why, but there wasn't anything shady going on, we promise 😉"
FAIR is flat out deceiving, it's one reason I walked away from them.
So being a non-mormon, I enjoy listening to these lectures. I have a few comments regarding the others but for this episode, I am a little confused or baffled at the section around the 50min mark regarding trinitarianism, modalism, oneness etc. The statement of the Three Witnesses is shown as if it is an aberration from the norm, but 2 Nephi 31:21, Mormon 7:7, D&C 20:28 all claim the exact same. What am I missing here? Even in the proper Christian Scripture, Christ speaks of He and the Father being one, but clearly is not saying one person, but one God: meaning eternal/uncreated, shared will, shared nature. The aberration seems to be in the statement speaking of the Father and Son being God but no mention of the Spirit, which likely follows into the trap of the JWs in denying the Personhood of the Spirit. Again in Scripture the Spirit is one who is sent by the Son, who eternally proceeds from the Father, who hovers over the water of creation (in Genesis) and the water of new creation (incarnation of Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary), and thus in each instance is described as a personal being, not simply an energy of the Father or Son.
Do we know the dates that Joseph’s mother and sisters joined their prospective church’s? This should pinpoint the dates of the revivals. Also I think I remember in Lucy’s biography that she and her daughters joined after Alvin’s death. Not sure what those years are specifically though.
Nvrmd- it was addressed right after I commented
1:49:58 Is it true that in Nauvoo, William Law was later accusing Joseph of having multiple people killed, including poisoning of Bishop Partridge, marring his under age daughters, then embezzling from his estate?
Is there an episode that covers the Boggs execution order?
Not yet.
@@mormonstories I hope that’s a teaser
Thanks!
How on earth can intelligent people believe this irrational thinking?
Because they only get the whitewashed version
Great, we’ll organized
1:37:00 I thought it was stated in Insiders View of Mormon Origins that a Methodist leader said Joseph helped them sort out a lot of theological issues, etc. Clearly he was well-versed and affiliated with the religious realm and not some clueless farm boy that's portrayed in church videos.
1:54:44 now I'm wondering if Joseph Smith had lived longer if he would have eventually been claiming that he was the son of God or something to that effect. Why not? His claims to divinity got grander and grander throughout his young life and he was always seeking more power. Seems like the logical next step and a lot of people have gone down this road.