My Anthropology of the North American Indians professor told a story about being offered a lot of money by a Mormon to present evidence of written language in North America. He said, thanks, that's a lot of money; unfortunately, there was no written language on the continent until the Europeans sailed in. Then he was offered more money. Again, he said, can't help you, there was no written language. And then he was offered even more money. He was flabbergast. So he just made it a point after that to always tell every class he taught about that weird interaction and about the total absence of early written languages, in case there were any misinformed Mormon students in his UC classes. I doubt it would have made any more impact on any student than it did on the guy who had been offering him money. But the amusing story stuck with me, a never-Mo, and one day I relayed it to my boss when he was finished telling me about his teaching his early morning seminary students something about translating plates. I had no idea I was kicking the Mormon foundation myth in the balls. I thought I was just contributing an entertaining story into the conversation. My boss responded that maybe every trace of an early languages had been hidden. And then he scuttled away before I could ask, Well, that makes no sense. Why would anyone invent a written language and then be hellbent that no one use it? Sorry, long story, I know. My point is that if someone is happily indoctrinated, facts just give them the creeps. Maybe this new book will make headway with some people who are already trying to suss out truth and objective reality, but my forlorn expectation is that it will not gain general traction in the Mormon community. Here's hoping, though. You never know what will be the thing that finally breaks through for someone.
I would have been tempted to hoax them and take the money. He could have donated the money to charitable causes, where the tithing money actually belongs.
I don't think he would have known that tithing money could be behind the generous offers. But, in any case, he couldn't have published anything that supported the notion of an early written language that every scholar already knew didn't exist. He would have had to have discovered physical evidence of it, and there just wasn't anywhere to look for that. But I enjoy your Robin Hood instincts. lol @@charlesmendeley9823
This is a really interesting story! I wonder who was trying to get your professor to say that? They are desperate for their narrative to work and will go to any lengths!
@sleepycalico. 😻🎉 😻🎉 Well, you certainly are not asleep! Wonderfully - and appropriately - studied and, sadly, accurately forecast. O, Lord, how I hope to be wrong!
For those who may happen upon this comment and misunderstand, the anthropology professor is saying there was no written language in NORTH AMERICA. There certainly were written languages in Mesoamerica. The fact that North American indigenes had no written language is a nail in the coffin of the Great Lakes/Heartland model for Book of Mormon geography.
Yes, but there is a form of edictology in Mormonism that has evolved with some basic rules: (1) The edicts of a living prophet take priority over the contradictory edicts of a dead prophet. (2) The edicts of a currently living prophet can only be relied upon while that prophet is living and, thereafter, only until ignored or reversed by a subsequent prophet. (3) The Mormon Tabernacle Choir may be restored to its Pre-Nelsonian glory in the fullness of time. (4) The words of canonized scripture take priority over the words of a living prophet, unless the living prophet bends them to his will through reinterpretation and redefinition of terms. (5) Adam was our Heavenly Father and the only God we worship during the time that Brigham Young was the living prophet and now it turns out that he wasn't any of that even back then, notwithstanding the teachings of the living prophet back then, thus revealing the complex retroactive nature of the living prophet supremacy. (6) People in Las Vegas are placing bets on how long it will take for Mormons to become Mormons again because some people think that human nature will always default to 2 syllables instead of 14 syllables when given a choice (as a related matter, see the aforementioned item (3) of the edictology).
Great points! I also really liked the edict observation! This is why it’s so interesting to talk to you ain’t never Mormon scholar looking from the outside in!
Just to expand on the Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith thing (for future reference in case a Mormon Trivia game is ever developed), the name Fielding comes from Joseph F. Smith's mother, Mary Fielding Smith, the widow of Hyrum Smith (the father of Joseph F.). Shortly after Hyrum's "martyrdom", Mary Fielding Smith joined the household of Heber C. Kimball, while still in Nauvoo, becoming his plural wife. Joseph F. was essentially raised in Utah as the step-son of Heber C. Kimball (somewhat weirdly making Helen Mar Kimball both the "step-sister" and "aunt" of Joseph F. Smith). (Mary Fielding Smith was initially brought into the church by John Taylor.) Of course it was not nepotism that elevated Joseph F. Smith into the highest ranks of leadership nor was it nepotism that elevated his son Joseph Fielding Smith into the highest ranks of leadership, nor was it even nepotism that caused Joseph Fielding Smith's son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie to immediately assume the very Apostleship chair that was vacated by Joseph Fielding Smith when Joseph Fielding Smith became the official President/Top Prophet Guy. If you think that nepotism had anything to do with any of that, you're a bad person. (Not so incidentally, the late Joseph Fielding McConkie, a professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, was the son of Bruce, grandson of Joseph Fielding, great-grandson of Joseph F. and great-great grandson of Mary Fielding Smith and Hyrum Smith. )
Great rundown! Thank you! I went to the church history museum a few months ago to look at some murals and one was of Mary Fielding Smith. The senior missionary guide was going on and on about how alone she was as she came across the plains and I said, but she was married to Heber C. Kimball. The senior missionary guide had no idea..
It's nice to hear about Mormonism from a non-member's perspective. I likewise have never been Mormon but became interested in Mormon history ten years ago. It is shocking how much of the history being written by Mormon scholars, even today, is blatantly biased in favor of the Mormon church and solely published to promote faith by obscuring the past.
I fully understand the fascinating historical aspect. That makes sense to me. The story of the LDS church and its subsequent history is a uniquely American experience, and is fascinating on the historic and cultural level. Thank you for the perspective.
Exactly! It is odd to expect that they would spend a lifetime learning all the nuances of Mormon theology so it is good to see what they see after an investigation and then share that feedback with us. Thanks for listening!
Carl Sagan's words that you typed are based on his opinion. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink except your own and it stinks to everyone except you. My believe is based on absolute truth. The Holy Ghost know the Truth of all things and can teach that truth to everyone who seeks with a sincere heart with real intend, having faith in Christ.
About horses in ancient America: once you introduce such a base "technology" as horse riding, you would never lose it again. It is far too practical to neglect this, and also difficult to let horses die out. Consequently, we would need to see evidence in precolumbian Native American culture, in hundreds of tribes using horses, dealing with horses, worshipping horses, whatever.
Absolutely brilliant Rebecca and Landon! I'm so glad you found Mythos. I can't wait to read this, especially as a never Mormon who has theologian friends in the Orthodox church. Thank you for this guest! How can we find the original reddit post?
If there are any Mormon apologists out there who watched this, I would like to have a discussion with you about what I wrote. I genuinely want to hear your point of view, so don't be hesitant to comment. Kind Regards, Mythos
Hi Mythos, my responses disappear here but I wanted to let you know I'm impressed with the book. This seems like a great deal of research you put into your thesis and it does accomplish what it sets out to do.
@@flaxenware Why would anyone accept Moroni's challenge without the church being transparent about its finances, Temple Rituals, occult origins, complete lack of any evidence prior to 1829, numerous false prophecies and questionable historical conduct?
@@flaxenware Why should anyone discuss anything with the Mormon church without full public disclosure of their finances? I would like to see their full financials.
19:25 There is a single study in the Texas Journal of Science that claims to have found a horse bone that would date to the time of the Jaredites. It's not a study I would give much weight to at present without a good deal more scholarship and peer review. But the Book of Mormon has much bigger problems than horses. 52:00 While agree with your conclusion, Mythos, I don't like this justification. Oliver does not hear Jehovah referring to the other sects as abominations. His vision is of Jehovah accepting the Kirtland Temple as his house. 59:00 Wordprint studies of the Book of Mormon has made me cynical of the entire discipline. That said, I don't think Joseph needed anything more than a 1769 KJV and familiarity with early 19th century American Protestantism. 1:07:00 Mayan glyphs operate under a design philosophy incompatible with the Book of Mormon's claim of deriving from the Egyptian writing system. 1:14:00 The slaying of Laban as described in 1 Nephi is not only morally bankrupt, it is physically impossible. It could not have happened as described. 1:18:00 Emma is wrong about enough things in her testimony. Joseph did polygamy. Joseph wrote a decent letter in 1829. Joseph was so familiar with Isaiah that he knew that there were walls around Jerusalem. I feel for Emma, but she's just wrong about too much for her to be a reliable witness of the "translation" process. Plus, the Spaulding theory was the dominant critical narrative at the time, so the apologetics were often configured to get after that theory.
But I would assume Oliver Cowdery accepted Joseph Smith's first vision experience where Joseph did hear that. Also, I see no reason to believe that wouldn't be the case because God specifically went to the Mormon temple and not to any other church. Such an action would imply such an idea. I don't think anyone like Cowdery could possibly come to a different conclusion if they saw God come to a church which claims all other Christian sects and philosophies are corrupt. Also, even if he didn't believe JS and his first vision, Methodists practice infant baptism, and we all know how the Mormon God feels about that. Thanks for your input though.
@@MythosAurelius I guess that's where I would pushback though. That is, as you said, an assumption about the thought process of Oliver Cowdery at a time where the First Vision account was neither canonized nor regarded as a key part of the movement's value proposition. Let's accept for a moment too that Oliver believed he saw Jehovah as Joseph Smith described in Section 110. Between that 1836 vision and Oliver's excommunication, a lot of events happen that appear to have shaken Oliver's belief in Joseph's prophetic standing (e.g. Kirtland Anti-banking, Fanny Alger, etc.). If Oliver held the position that Joseph was a fallen prophet, and if the Kirtland Temple had fallen into the hands of apostates and persecutors, then I could see a very reasonable case for him believing that the Lord had abandoned the Mormon cause, at least for a time. Returning to something familiar like Methodism would be like a safety blanket in a trying time. Again, I agree with your conclusion. Oliver did not see a real angel with real golden plates that were a real record of ancient Hebrew Americans. However, I wouldn't be swayed to that position on the notion that Oliver was an entirely rational actor, especially while experiencing a crisis of faith.
@@perryekimae I understand where you are coming from and that's why I didn't include it in my work. However, the Book of Mormon basically states that God thinks infant baptism is evil. If God verified that the church was true in its early years by appearing in the temple, wouldn't that mean that what he said about sects that practice infant being evil also be true?
@@perryekimae 14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither afaith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. 15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. 16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having aauthority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for bperfect clove dcasteth out all fear. I personally doubt that Smith would have withheld the details of the 1838 first vision if it were true. However, you are correct in that Cowdery may not have heard the abomination part of the first vision since he had already left the church. Either way, he could not convert to methodism because the appearance of God verified that the BOM was true in the early 1830s by appearing to him, and that God said that people who practice it would "perish" and that they are in "iniquity".
@@MythosAurelius I agree that if the First Vision were true, it is highly unlikely that those details would have been withheld. Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated on 12 April 1838. The 1838 First Vision account was dictated in April or May 1838. Oliver was most probably wholly unaware of the content of the First Vision. That may be an issue for the authenticity of the First Vision accounts, but I don't see that as a problem for Oliver's BoM witness. I think you have a more salient point with doubting the import Oliver placed on the veracity of his witness to the Book of Mormon if he was going to a church that practiced infant baptism. I also think that argument relies on expecting a bit more rationality out of someone experiencing a crisis of faith than is likely, but apologists and believing scholars would need to deal with that objection if they want to use Oliver's witness. Were I an apologist, I would compare Oliver to the prodigal son, and I would point out that Oliver, when he had lost elections and livelihood, finally came to himself and returned to what he knew was the truth all along. Like the prodigal son, he was drawn to the wasteful things of the world. This because of how he was treated by the other Saints at the time of his excommunication. But in the end, he could deny the truth no longer. Fill that in with journal statements and the canned "Oliver never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon", and you've got yourself a FAIR article. When push came to shove and Oliver was in his roughest straits, it is telling that it wasn't the Book of Mormon he seemed to find his solace in. Between that and how little Joseph referred to the Book of Mormon in his ministry, I have my doubts that Oliver had read the thing after 1830. He probably got stuck in 2 Nephi, like the rest of us 😅
As an Exmo, I appreciate your videos and presentations of evidence and common sense. Since leaving the church I have spent many years of my adult life researching church history, reading books on both sides of the issue, and watching interviews and podcasts similar to this one. I spend my time doing this because I harbor significant bitterness and resentment toward the adults who lied to me, misguided me, and essentially worked hard to indoctrinate me throughout my childhood and adolescence for the sake of religious belief. Doing the research is therapeutic and validating to me in that I am constantly learning about my own past. I believe many of the Exmos who make podcasts and comment on them are in a similar place. What I have a difficult time understanding is the "Nevmo" who commits a significant number of waking hours working to disprove the truth claims of the LDS church. Why? People outside the church really do not need convincing, the church's doctrine and claims defy logic and common sense on their surface. What is the angle of a Nevmo who commits to dismantling the church? This just appears predatorial by nature. Just my two cents.
Do you know what is predatory, creating an army of poorly trained missionaries to dupe hapless vulnerable people across the world who often lack the ability to assess the truth claims of the church fairly due to a language barrier or lack of education. The church preys on everyday citizens across the globe with their proselytizing. If the church were truly insular and minded their own business, I actually don't think I would be in the right to criticize them. But since the church feels entitled to force their "gospel" on people despite the technological age rendering the point of missionary work obsolete, the whole doctrine is fair game for scrutiny.
1:30:08 I can’t think of any other religious traditions that sing songs about their leaders. I know of Bible songs, certainly - songs about the twelve disciples, Jonah, Noah, etc. I’m curious now, though. Can anyone out there suggest one or two religions who venerate their modern leaders in song, besides the LDS? Like, do the Catholics have songs about the popes?
It is my understanding that the LDS church venerates their current leaders to a degree that goes beyond their reverence for Biblical figures. Their is a quote from Joseph Smith that goes as follows "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” For them, the church really begins in 1830. I was surprised to learn that they did sing songs about them but it is inline with the way they view their church.
Although I enjoyed the podcast. I wished you would have let the guest speak more. I feel you interrupted when he was getting to something interesting. One example would be when he was ready to speak about the heartland model. He was interrupted and couldn't finish his thoughts. Love your podcast, and you make a good team!
There was also a type of Camel present in North America before BOM times…that doesn’t mean they were still around at that time of the Nephites/Lamanites and worth mentioning in the BOM.
It always bothered me that those under 8 years old get a pass into exaltation. First, a large percentage of human beings have died before this age (perhaps 25% or so) Second, this seems to negate the whole purpose (according the the LDS plan of salvation) for coming to earth in the first place: experience and learning to "become" a divine person, and eventually a God. Third, how can those who die after a few hours or days of earthlife in any way have gained the experience necessary to prepare for the next phase after earth? I can't even remember any memory before about the age of 3 or 4, so what would a few days of mortal life do for the spirit? It's hard to believe you'd even remember any part of the experience, or gain anything from it. If I could change the teaching it would be that children who die early (before they have had the essential experience of life here) would be rerouted back through life again until they had received a full experience. Also, what would you do about the tens of millions of humans (or at least potential humans) that have been slaughtered through abortions? Justice seems to insist that they will be redirected to birth to that they receive the necessary mortal test.
I didn’t hear anything new here. “Unique” perspective? Is there new research in his little book? And no I am not an apologist. I’m happy to be an exmo. I’m not attacking, just asking. Thanks for info from anyone who has read it.
Well I've read it and I suggest you read it too, instead of just judging ignorantly. But since you've presented here as someone with the intellectual clout of a field mouse, I doubt you'd have any interesting or worthwhile commentary on it.
@@DancingQueenieI found your behavior offensive when I read your posts on another thread here. The way you keep referring to this author's book as his "little" book is disrespectful and shows the tone you are approaching this author with. If you can't show respect you're not owed any.
Hasn't the Church modified its ideas on the Child deification problem? As its been discussed in different family settings that children who die before the age of 8 will be raised to adulthood during the Millennium.
1. Children are guaranteed salvation as long as they haven't reached the age of accountability when they died. 2. Children will experience growth and testing during the millennium. Pick one. However, even if number 2 became the doctrine of the church, there are a number of problems with it. Firstly. Joseph Smith said that children will never grow during the resurrection. Another problem is Matthew 22:30. Furthermore, Joseph F. Smith, the architect of the idea of that children will grow during the resurrection, has firmly stated that no child will be tested during the millennium. This is obviously because if they were tested then some might fail, and this would make it that the BoM is inaccurate in that children are not guaranteed salvation in Christ. If they are never tested, then even if they grow the doctrine would still have to violate the child's free will and the fairness of the plan of Salvation. The doctrine fails because the theology that supports the doctrine is contradictory and false.
I have To say but Bear with me so I heber valley temple in residential Setting temple's aren't supposed to be in there but how ever Kirkland Ohio Was in the residential Area And Nauvoo Same thing St George Same Logan Utah is Also the Same and Manti Same And Salt Lake City Back in day And it's also in Residential area So The LDS Has Putting Temple's in Residential Area For Almost 200 Years
You mention that they Celestial Kingdom would be packed with all the (millions) of children that died before they were eight years old throughout and before recorded history. But you are assuming that the Earth is older than 6028 years. ;)
I am disappointed. I will continue to support your podcast in views and financially. But I think if you have an author whose credibility is being a scholar we should know more, especially if you are promoting his book. I hope you don't delete my comment. Transparency is just not for the LDS church. By the way, Dan Vogel's name is..... Dan Vogel.
Mormonism is ignored in academia. I learned about so many different religions in university but Mormonism wasn't one of them (unless you go to BYU or a similar school). I actually don't feel my university education helped me in my criticism of Mormonism. It was having access to the actual ancient manuscripts and the ability to deal with the typical Apologist mode of thinking that enabled me to write my work. I have a message and I wanted to share it anonymously. There isn't really much more to it.
Because They could more easily find me if they knew my alma mater. Look, the LDS church has apologists with a lot of Academic weight, but that doesn't mean anything when they promote lies. We have all seen them do it.
@@anthonycampbell4534 ACTUALLY, the AUTHOR could be a monkey, but if what he has written are facts and reasoned scholarship, neither his genus, species, nor type of underpants has the slightest significance relative to his work. UNLIKE VERY. MANY. WHOSE. MONKEY-SHINES. HAVE. NEVER. EVEN. BEEN. CALLED. TO. ACCOUNT.
@MythosAurelius what do you think the LDS church would do if they knew your identity? There are prominent scholars who have published with valid credentials, Your comments are puzzling. I think a simple question of what your academic scholarship is not threatening.
Come on! There is nothing new here. I grew up in the church, but left over 45 years ago. These ideas were discussed in Mormon Sunday schools starting long before I came arsound.
Sadly we don’t get our own planets now. Not sure what we are going to do in heaven but hang out and give an all powerful god praise. Sounds like hell really.
These are scritures out of the Bible. Else what shall they which are Baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all why are they then Baptized for the dead? And ye that are sick shall call opon the elders of the church and they shall anoint your head with oil and the prayer of faith shall heal the sick. And he gave some Apostles and prophets for the work of the ministry until we all come into a unity of faith and the perfecting of the Saints. Sorry Dudest but there is only one church that has these teaching found and mentioned in the Bible. In reference to your Bible statement.
So you are saying that if I were to open a church and start baptizing the dead that it would automatically make my church legitimate by this fact alone? You are aware that various Christian sects in the early church practiced a form of baptism for the dead but also believed a whole lot of other things that your church would deem heretical. You should also know that the Mormon church is not the only church to practice baptism of the dead in the modern age. Does that make them legitimate as well? This is precisely what I was talking about when I stated that Mormon apologists cherry-pick evidence from historical Christianity to support their legitimacy. Jesus in the Book of Mormon and the Bible says to do no oaths yet your church is filled to the brim with terrifying oaths involving vengeance for Joseph Smith and horrendous punishments to those who break their oaths of silence about the Temple rituals. Do you still think the Mormon church is aligned with the New Testament? How about the fact that Jesus drank wine? How about the fact that your church is among the richest religious organizations in the world when Jesus states that you should give away your possessions? How about the fact that the Bible literally says to reject angels preaching alternative gospels in Galatians 1:8? And further more, Paul's statement about Baptism of the dead is about the fact that he is reinforcing that the practice is directly related to the notion of a coming resurrection. The Mormon concept of Baptism of the dead could be practiced even if there was no resurrection because the baptism is necessary to leave spirit prison. Therefore, if Paul had a Mormon understanding of Mormon eschatology, his statement about Baptism of the Dead would not really make sense.
At about 33 minutes the guy with the beard says that because the 8th article of faith says we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, that Latter-day Saints use that as an easy cop out. I don't see serious apologists appeal to mistranslation very often. They usually address the issue head on by analyzing Bible verses using the same tools that other scholars use.
@@BenjaminYWarner They actually do use it, especially when the Joseph Smith translation backs up the current theology of the church. Look up the apologist explanations regarding John 4:24 and 1 Corinthians 7. Also, I have seen many apologists take issue with changing the name of Lucifer to "Day Star" in Isaiah 14:12 even though that is the correct rendition of the name (a KJV error). However, I do admit that they do not always use this as a defense, and they most certainly attempt to address contradictions with the Bible using other avenues and logic. Thank you for your comment.
Mythos Aurelius is a fitting name for a Deceiver and Accuser of the Brethren. Mythos's writings are all based on his interpretation. This is his faith/belief. 1 Nephi 1:1-17 can be fact checked. You may want to read the book, Lehi's Journey in the Wilderness. Everything you have written is a Myth/your opinion. Every person who watches this should know and understand this. Mythos says in this video, That's just sort of my take, that's just sort of my opinion. I have had personal confirmation by the power of the Holy Ghost many times that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is True and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. BTW, that is the only way anyone can know if it is true. No one can prove it intellectually or, disprove it intellectually.
So this is your opinion. Your feelings don’t make it fact. This episode was about what non-member scholars think about LDS truth claims so obviously it is his opinion. Everything in religion is someone’s beliefs. And Lehi in the wilderness can be fact checked and is full of myth and hopes.
@@mormonishpodcast1036 It is a Fact that by their fruits ye shall know them. That is not opinion. Lehi's journey in the wilderness is described in the Book of Mormon. Therefore you can now go to that land and retrace the trail based on what is written in the Book of Mormon. That is also Fact.
I usually love your podcast but I can’t really take what Mythos said/wrote seriously when he’s hiding behind the screen. Why hide when he claims he’s never a Mormon?
I actually wanted to be completely anonymous. I didn't even want to admit that, but there is a lot about the internals of your faith that I don't know, so I felt the need to at least disclose that detail.
I appreciate your comment but don’t understand why someone showing their face makes a difference. We have invited multiple scholars on our show who refuse to come on because if they are seen as discrediting a religion they are attacked as anti-religious and it can have repercussions on their career so they refuse our invitation. I don’t feel we should dismiss a scholar simply for not wanting to be on camera, at least they are willing to speak. This is a podcast and half our audience only listens to the show so why would showing himself on video be important? I think all of us post Mormons take the Gospel Topics Essays seriously and they are all written anonymously but we focus on what they say rather than who said it. We ask every guest how they want to appear on our show and respect their request and would hope others do as well. There are many reasons people may not want to be shown on camera (we have several in an upcoming episode) so we try to respect each persons privacy. Thanks for listening.
My Anthropology of the North American Indians professor told a story about being offered a lot of money by a Mormon to present evidence of written language in North America. He said, thanks, that's a lot of money; unfortunately, there was no written language on the continent until the Europeans sailed in. Then he was offered more money. Again, he said, can't help you, there was no written language. And then he was offered even more money. He was flabbergast.
So he just made it a point after that to always tell every class he taught about that weird interaction and about the total absence of early written languages, in case there were any misinformed Mormon students in his UC classes.
I doubt it would have made any more impact on any student than it did on the guy who had been offering him money. But the amusing story stuck with me, a never-Mo, and one day I relayed it to my boss when he was finished telling me about his teaching his early morning seminary students something about translating plates.
I had no idea I was kicking the Mormon foundation myth in the balls. I thought I was just contributing an entertaining story into the conversation. My boss responded that maybe every trace of an early languages had been hidden. And then he scuttled away before I could ask, Well, that makes no sense. Why would anyone invent a written language and then be hellbent that no one use it?
Sorry, long story, I know. My point is that if someone is happily indoctrinated, facts just give them the creeps. Maybe this new book will make headway with some people who are already trying to suss out truth and objective reality, but my forlorn expectation is that it will not gain general traction in the Mormon community. Here's hoping, though. You never know what will be the thing that finally breaks through for someone.
I would have been tempted to hoax them and take the money. He could have donated the money to charitable causes, where the tithing money actually belongs.
I don't think he would have known that tithing money could be behind the generous offers. But, in any case, he couldn't have published anything that supported the notion of an early written language that every scholar already knew didn't exist. He would have had to have discovered physical evidence of it, and there just wasn't anywhere to look for that. But I enjoy your Robin Hood instincts. lol @@charlesmendeley9823
This is a really interesting story! I wonder who was trying to get your professor to say that? They are desperate for their narrative to work and will go to any lengths!
@sleepycalico. 😻🎉 😻🎉
Well, you certainly are not asleep! Wonderfully - and
appropriately - studied and,
sadly, accurately forecast.
O, Lord, how I hope to be wrong!
For those who may happen upon this comment and misunderstand, the anthropology professor is saying there was no written language in NORTH AMERICA. There certainly were written languages in Mesoamerica. The fact that North American indigenes had no written language is a nail in the coffin of the Great Lakes/Heartland model for Book of Mormon geography.
"The edicts conflict"
Amen! You can only ignore it for so long.
Yes, but there is a form of edictology in Mormonism that has evolved with some basic rules: (1) The edicts of a living prophet take priority over the contradictory edicts of a dead prophet. (2) The edicts of a currently living prophet can only be relied upon while that prophet is living and, thereafter, only until ignored or reversed by a subsequent prophet. (3) The Mormon Tabernacle Choir may be restored to its Pre-Nelsonian glory in the fullness of time. (4) The words of canonized scripture take priority over the words of a living prophet, unless the living prophet bends them to his will through reinterpretation and redefinition of terms. (5) Adam was our Heavenly Father and the only God we worship during the time that Brigham Young was the living prophet and now it turns out that he wasn't any of that even back then, notwithstanding the teachings of the living prophet back then, thus revealing the complex retroactive nature of the living prophet supremacy. (6) People in Las Vegas are placing bets on how long it will take for Mormons to become Mormons again because some people think that human nature will always default to 2 syllables instead of 14 syllables when given a choice (as a related matter, see the aforementioned item (3) of the edictology).
Great points! I also really liked the edict observation! This is why it’s so interesting to talk to you ain’t never Mormon scholar looking from the outside in!
Just to expand on the Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith thing (for future reference in case a Mormon Trivia game is ever developed), the name Fielding comes from Joseph F. Smith's mother, Mary Fielding Smith, the widow of Hyrum Smith (the father of Joseph F.). Shortly after Hyrum's "martyrdom", Mary Fielding Smith joined the household of Heber C. Kimball, while still in Nauvoo, becoming his plural wife. Joseph F. was essentially raised in Utah as the step-son of Heber C. Kimball (somewhat weirdly making Helen Mar Kimball both the "step-sister" and "aunt" of Joseph F. Smith). (Mary Fielding Smith was initially brought into the church by John Taylor.) Of course it was not nepotism that elevated Joseph F. Smith into the highest ranks of leadership nor was it nepotism that elevated his son Joseph Fielding Smith into the highest ranks of leadership, nor was it even nepotism that caused Joseph Fielding Smith's son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie to immediately assume the very Apostleship chair that was vacated by Joseph Fielding Smith when Joseph Fielding Smith became the official President/Top Prophet Guy. If you think that nepotism had anything to do with any of that, you're a bad person. (Not so incidentally, the late Joseph Fielding McConkie, a professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, was the son of Bruce, grandson of Joseph Fielding, great-grandson of Joseph F. and great-great grandson of Mary Fielding Smith and Hyrum Smith. )
Nepotism is the tap root of Mormonism and that’s why the tree is shriveling.
Great rundown! Thank you! I went to the church history museum a few months ago to look at some murals and one was of Mary Fielding Smith. The senior missionary guide was going on and on about how alone she was as she came across the plains and I said, but she was married to Heber C. Kimball. The senior missionary guide had no idea..
It's nice to hear about Mormonism from a non-member's perspective. I likewise have never been Mormon but became interested in Mormon history ten years ago. It is shocking how much of the history being written by Mormon scholars, even today, is blatantly biased in favor of the Mormon church and solely published to promote faith by obscuring the past.
I fully understand the fascinating historical aspect. That makes sense to me. The story of the LDS church and its subsequent history is a uniquely American experience, and is fascinating on the historic and cultural level. Thank you for the perspective.
Very well done. The guest was great..I say this as a never LDS that has studied LDS theology and history
The quality of your guests and content is always superb!!!!! Great presentation!!!! Thx!!!!!
Appreciate outsiders even taking the time to look at Mormonism.
Exactly! It is odd to expect that they would spend a lifetime learning all the nuances of Mormon theology so it is good to see what they see after an investigation and then share that feedback with us. Thanks for listening!
Excellent interview and guest. ❤❤
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”
― Carl Sagan
Carl Sagan's words that you typed are based on his opinion. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink except your own and it stinks to everyone except you. My believe is based on absolute truth. The Holy Ghost know the Truth of all things and can teach that truth to everyone who seeks with a sincere heart with real intend, having faith in Christ.
and I suppose the holy ghost inspired you to use the word asshole. lol righteous
Hey, Mormonish
and Mr. Aurelius.
Auspicious name
bringing auspicious presentation.
Thank you!
I hope so! Thanks for the comment.
Wow! Another hero for the ex mo world!
Thank you
About horses in ancient America: once you introduce such a base "technology" as horse riding, you would never lose it again. It is far too practical to neglect this, and also difficult to let horses die out. Consequently, we would need to see evidence in precolumbian Native American culture, in hundreds of tribes using horses, dealing with horses, worshipping horses, whatever.
Absolutely brilliant Rebecca and Landon! I'm so glad you found Mythos. I can't wait to read this, especially as a never Mormon who has theologian friends in the Orthodox church. Thank you for this guest!
How can we find the original reddit post?
If there are any Mormon apologists out there who watched this, I would like to have a discussion with you about what I wrote. I genuinely want to hear your point of view, so don't be hesitant to comment.
Kind Regards, Mythos
Hi Mythos, my responses disappear here but I wanted to let you know I'm impressed with the book. This seems like a great deal of research you put into your thesis and it does accomplish what it sets out to do.
@@WanderingMinstrel2024 Thank you very much!
But would anyone take that challenge without you being transparent about your identity?
@@flaxenware Why would anyone accept Moroni's challenge without the church being transparent about its finances, Temple Rituals, occult origins, complete lack of any evidence prior to 1829, numerous false prophecies and questionable historical conduct?
@@flaxenware Why should anyone discuss anything with the Mormon church without full public disclosure of their finances? I would like to see their full financials.
19:25 There is a single study in the Texas Journal of Science that claims to have found a horse bone that would date to the time of the Jaredites. It's not a study I would give much weight to at present without a good deal more scholarship and peer review. But the Book of Mormon has much bigger problems than horses.
52:00 While agree with your conclusion, Mythos, I don't like this justification. Oliver does not hear Jehovah referring to the other sects as abominations. His vision is of Jehovah accepting the Kirtland Temple as his house.
59:00 Wordprint studies of the Book of Mormon has made me cynical of the entire discipline. That said, I don't think Joseph needed anything more than a 1769 KJV and familiarity with early 19th century American Protestantism.
1:07:00 Mayan glyphs operate under a design philosophy incompatible with the Book of Mormon's claim of deriving from the Egyptian writing system.
1:14:00 The slaying of Laban as described in 1 Nephi is not only morally bankrupt, it is physically impossible. It could not have happened as described.
1:18:00 Emma is wrong about enough things in her testimony. Joseph did polygamy. Joseph wrote a decent letter in 1829. Joseph was so familiar with Isaiah that he knew that there were walls around Jerusalem. I feel for Emma, but she's just wrong about too much for her to be a reliable witness of the "translation" process. Plus, the Spaulding theory was the dominant critical narrative at the time, so the apologetics were often configured to get after that theory.
But I would assume Oliver Cowdery accepted Joseph Smith's first vision experience where Joseph did hear that. Also, I see no reason to believe that wouldn't be the case because God specifically went to the Mormon temple and not to any other church. Such an action would imply such an idea. I don't think anyone like Cowdery could possibly come to a different conclusion if they saw God come to a church which claims all other Christian sects and philosophies are corrupt. Also, even if he didn't believe JS and his first vision, Methodists practice infant baptism, and we all know how the Mormon God feels about that. Thanks for your input though.
@@MythosAurelius I guess that's where I would pushback though. That is, as you said, an assumption about the thought process of Oliver Cowdery at a time where the First Vision account was neither canonized nor regarded as a key part of the movement's value proposition.
Let's accept for a moment too that Oliver believed he saw Jehovah as Joseph Smith described in Section 110. Between that 1836 vision and Oliver's excommunication, a lot of events happen that appear to have shaken Oliver's belief in Joseph's prophetic standing (e.g. Kirtland Anti-banking, Fanny Alger, etc.). If Oliver held the position that Joseph was a fallen prophet, and if the Kirtland Temple had fallen into the hands of apostates and persecutors, then I could see a very reasonable case for him believing that the Lord had abandoned the Mormon cause, at least for a time. Returning to something familiar like Methodism would be like a safety blanket in a trying time.
Again, I agree with your conclusion. Oliver did not see a real angel with real golden plates that were a real record of ancient Hebrew Americans. However, I wouldn't be swayed to that position on the notion that Oliver was an entirely rational actor, especially while experiencing a crisis of faith.
@@perryekimae I understand where you are coming from and that's why I didn't include it in my work. However, the Book of Mormon basically states that God thinks infant baptism is evil. If God verified that the church was true in its early years by appearing in the temple, wouldn't that mean that what he said about sects that practice infant being evil also be true?
@@perryekimae 14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither afaith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having aauthority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for bperfect clove dcasteth out all fear.
I personally doubt that Smith would have withheld the details of the 1838 first vision if it were true. However, you are correct in that Cowdery may not have heard the abomination part of the first vision since he had already left the church. Either way, he could not convert to methodism because the appearance of God verified that the BOM was true in the early 1830s by appearing to him, and that God said that people who practice it would "perish" and that they are in "iniquity".
@@MythosAurelius I agree that if the First Vision were true, it is highly unlikely that those details would have been withheld. Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated on 12 April 1838. The 1838 First Vision account was dictated in April or May 1838. Oliver was most probably wholly unaware of the content of the First Vision. That may be an issue for the authenticity of the First Vision accounts, but I don't see that as a problem for Oliver's BoM witness.
I think you have a more salient point with doubting the import Oliver placed on the veracity of his witness to the Book of Mormon if he was going to a church that practiced infant baptism. I also think that argument relies on expecting a bit more rationality out of someone experiencing a crisis of faith than is likely, but apologists and believing scholars would need to deal with that objection if they want to use Oliver's witness.
Were I an apologist, I would compare Oliver to the prodigal son, and I would point out that Oliver, when he had lost elections and livelihood, finally came to himself and returned to what he knew was the truth all along. Like the prodigal son, he was drawn to the wasteful things of the world. This because of how he was treated by the other Saints at the time of his excommunication. But in the end, he could deny the truth no longer. Fill that in with journal statements and the canned "Oliver never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon", and you've got yourself a FAIR article.
When push came to shove and Oliver was in his roughest straits, it is telling that it wasn't the Book of Mormon he seemed to find his solace in. Between that and how little Joseph referred to the Book of Mormon in his ministry, I have my doubts that Oliver had read the thing after 1830. He probably got stuck in 2 Nephi, like the rest of us 😅
As an Exmo, I appreciate your videos and presentations of evidence and common sense. Since leaving the church I have spent many years of my adult life researching church history, reading books on both sides of the issue, and watching interviews and podcasts similar to this one. I spend my time doing this because I harbor significant bitterness and resentment toward the adults who lied to me, misguided me, and essentially worked hard to indoctrinate me throughout my childhood and adolescence for the sake of religious belief. Doing the research is therapeutic and validating to me in that I am constantly learning about my own past. I believe many of the Exmos who make podcasts and comment on them are in a similar place.
What I have a difficult time understanding is the "Nevmo" who commits a significant number of waking hours working to disprove the truth claims of the LDS church. Why? People outside the church really do not need convincing, the church's doctrine and claims defy logic and common sense on their surface. What is the angle of a Nevmo who commits to dismantling the church? This just appears predatorial by nature. Just my two cents.
Do you know what is predatory, creating an army of poorly trained missionaries to dupe hapless vulnerable people across the world who often lack the ability to assess the truth claims of the church fairly due to a language barrier or lack of education. The church preys on everyday citizens across the globe with their proselytizing. If the church were truly insular and minded their own business, I actually don't think I would be in the right to criticize them. But since the church feels entitled to force their "gospel" on people despite the technological age rendering the point of missionary work obsolete, the whole doctrine is fair game for scrutiny.
The churches truth claims are like unicorns. You can’t prove they aren’t possible.
1:30:08 I can’t think of any other religious traditions that sing songs about their leaders. I know of Bible songs, certainly - songs about the twelve disciples, Jonah, Noah, etc. I’m curious now, though. Can anyone out there suggest one or two religions who venerate their modern leaders in song, besides the LDS? Like, do the Catholics have songs about the popes?
It is my understanding that the LDS church venerates their current leaders to a degree that goes beyond their reverence for Biblical figures. Their is a quote from Joseph Smith that goes as follows "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” For them, the church really begins in 1830. I was surprised to learn that they did sing songs about them but it is inline with the way they view their church.
I can only find this book in kindle form. Is there anywhere I can buy a hard copy?
The book is available in softcover now if you are interested. Got cleared earlier.
Thanks! I appreciate that the author understood there's a difference between Mormonism and Christianity.
Although I enjoyed the podcast. I wished you would have let the guest speak more. I feel you interrupted when he was getting to something interesting. One example would be when he was ready to speak about the heartland model. He was interrupted and couldn't finish his thoughts. Love your podcast, and you make a good team!
You know a book has trouble if the very animals in the story prove anachronism
I am not disappointed
There was also a type of Camel present in North America before BOM times…that doesn’t mean they were still around at that time of the Nephites/Lamanites and worth mentioning in the BOM.
I just ordered the paperback.
Thanks!
No gasligjting here...well done.sir.❤
It always bothered me that those under 8 years old get a pass into exaltation. First, a large percentage of human beings have died before this age (perhaps 25% or so) Second, this seems to negate the whole purpose (according the the LDS plan of salvation) for coming to earth in the first place: experience and learning to "become" a divine person, and eventually a God. Third, how can those who die after a few hours or days of earthlife in any way have gained the experience necessary to prepare for the next phase after earth? I can't even remember any memory before about the age of 3 or 4, so what would a few days of mortal life do for the spirit? It's hard to believe you'd even remember any part of the experience, or gain anything from it. If I could change the teaching it would be that children who die early (before they have had the essential experience of life here) would be rerouted back through life again until they had received a full experience. Also, what would you do about the tens of millions of humans (or at least potential humans) that have been slaughtered through abortions? Justice seems to insist that they will be redirected to birth to that they receive the necessary mortal test.
Thank you!!!!!!!
Absolutely excellent
Just bought the book!!!!
Thanks! Hope you enjoy it.
I didn’t hear anything new here. “Unique” perspective? Is there new research in his little book? And no I am not an apologist. I’m happy to be an exmo. I’m not attacking, just asking. Thanks for info from anyone who has read it.
Well I've read it and I suggest you read it too, instead of just judging ignorantly. But since you've presented here as someone with the intellectual clout of a field mouse, I doubt you'd have any interesting or worthwhile commentary on it.
@@WanderingMinstrel2024 What? I “presented” a simple question: is there new research in his book? We’re all friends here so why the insults?
@@WanderingMinstrel2024 How did you like the book? I responded to your question earlier and for some reason the response and the question disappeared.
@@DancingQueenieI found your behavior offensive when I read your posts on another thread here. The way you keep referring to this author's book as his "little" book is disrespectful and shows the tone you are approaching this author with. If you can't show respect you're not owed any.
I'm impressed with the book. This seems like a great deal of research you put into your thesis and it does accomplish what it sets out to do.
So fascinating!
Conclusiary statements are only proof of the declarer.
Hasn't the Church modified its ideas on the Child deification problem? As its been discussed in different family settings that children who die before the age of 8 will be raised to adulthood during the Millennium.
1. Children are guaranteed salvation as long as they haven't reached the age of accountability when they died.
2. Children will experience growth and testing during the millennium.
Pick one. However, even if number 2 became the doctrine of the church, there are a number of problems with it. Firstly. Joseph Smith said that children will never grow during the resurrection. Another problem is Matthew 22:30. Furthermore, Joseph F. Smith, the architect of the idea of that children will grow during the resurrection, has firmly stated that no child will be tested during the millennium. This is obviously because if they were tested then some might fail, and this would make it that the BoM is inaccurate in that children are not guaranteed salvation in Christ. If they are never tested, then even if they grow the doctrine would still have to violate the child's free will and the fairness of the plan of Salvation. The doctrine fails because the theology that supports the doctrine is contradictory and false.
I have a really bad headed injury. Is this book on audio?
Sorry to hear you are injured. It isn't in audio format yet. However, if you have any questions, I am more than happy to help.
Love Mormon*ish!
Such great dialogue I love it!
I have To say but Bear with me so I heber valley temple in residential Setting temple's aren't supposed to be in there but how ever Kirkland Ohio Was in the residential Area And Nauvoo Same thing St George Same Logan Utah is Also the Same and Manti Same And Salt Lake City Back in day And it's also in Residential area So The LDS Has Putting Temple's in Residential Area For Almost 200 Years
If you don't Believe me I'm also lds And look it on Google maps you see what i am talking about
@@nathanderr6317Not believing you isn’t a problem, but understanding you is. Please, please, PLEASE use punctuation when you comment.
Look at how many church’s spun off from JS!! Jesus didn’t have one church either.
That comment about he has a lot of homework to do , sounds like a comment one of those so called scholars or the Cavalry would say.
I will buy the book
Thank you!
It's just fine he doesn't give his credentials. Listen or don't. He doesn't owe us anything.
@24:46 Didache is pronounced di-da-kay
I know. I have a bad habit of pronouncing it that way!
You mention that they Celestial Kingdom would be packed with all the (millions) of children that died before they were eight years old throughout and before recorded history. But you are assuming that the Earth is older than 6028 years. ;)
I am disappointed. I will continue to support your podcast in views and financially. But I think if you have an author whose credibility is being a scholar we should know more, especially if you are promoting his book. I hope you don't delete my comment. Transparency is just not for the LDS church. By the way, Dan Vogel's name is..... Dan Vogel.
Mormonism is ignored in academia. I learned about so many different religions in university but Mormonism wasn't one of them (unless you go to BYU or a similar school). I actually don't feel my university education helped me in my criticism of Mormonism. It was having access to the actual ancient manuscripts and the ability to deal with the typical Apologist mode of thinking that enabled me to write my work. I have a message and I wanted to share it anonymously. There isn't really much more to it.
Why are you hiding your academic credials when you are billed as a scholar?
Because They could more easily find me if they knew my alma mater. Look, the LDS church has apologists with a lot of Academic weight, but that doesn't mean anything when they promote lies. We have all seen them do it.
@@anthonycampbell4534 ACTUALLY, the AUTHOR could be a monkey, but if what he has written are facts and reasoned scholarship, neither his genus, species, nor type of underpants has the slightest significance relative to his work.
UNLIKE VERY. MANY. WHOSE.
MONKEY-SHINES. HAVE. NEVER. EVEN. BEEN. CALLED. TO. ACCOUNT.
@MythosAurelius what do you think the LDS church would do if they knew your identity? There are prominent scholars who have published with valid credentials, Your comments are puzzling. I think a simple question of what your academic scholarship is not threatening.
Come on! There is nothing new here. I grew up in the church, but left over 45 years ago. These ideas were discussed in Mormon Sunday schools starting long before I came arsound.
Not sure what church you went to but none of these things were discussed in Sunday School. The church hides its warts!
Sadly we don’t get our own planets now. Not sure what we are going to do in heaven but hang out and give an all powerful god praise. Sounds like hell really.
These are scritures out of the Bible. Else what shall they which are Baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all why are they then Baptized for the dead? And ye that are sick shall call opon the elders of the church and they shall anoint your head with oil and the prayer of faith shall heal the sick. And he gave some Apostles and prophets for the work of the ministry until we all come into a unity of faith and the perfecting of the Saints. Sorry Dudest but there is only one church that has these teaching found and mentioned in the Bible. In reference to your Bible statement.
So you are saying that if I were to open a church and start baptizing the dead that it would automatically make my church legitimate by this fact alone? You are aware that various Christian sects in the early church practiced a form of baptism for the dead but also believed a whole lot of other things that your church would deem heretical. You should also know that the Mormon church is not the only church to practice baptism of the dead in the modern age. Does that make them legitimate as well? This is precisely what I was talking about when I stated that Mormon apologists cherry-pick evidence from historical Christianity to support their legitimacy. Jesus in the Book of Mormon and the Bible says to do no oaths yet your church is filled to the brim with terrifying oaths involving vengeance for Joseph Smith and horrendous punishments to those who break their oaths of silence about the Temple rituals. Do you still think the Mormon church is aligned with the New Testament? How about the fact that Jesus drank wine? How about the fact that your church is among the richest religious organizations in the world when Jesus states that you should give away your possessions? How about the fact that the Bible literally says to reject angels preaching alternative gospels in Galatians 1:8? And further more, Paul's statement about Baptism of the dead is about the fact that he is reinforcing that the practice is directly related to the notion of a coming resurrection. The Mormon concept of Baptism of the dead could be practiced even if there was no resurrection because the baptism is necessary to leave spirit prison. Therefore, if Paul had a Mormon understanding of Mormon eschatology, his statement about Baptism of the Dead would not really make sense.
Descriptive vs prescriptive…
This video has a lot of straw man arguments. The "claims" that he says Mormon apologists make are not claims they actually make.
For instance.......
At about 33 minutes the guy with the beard says that because the 8th article of faith says we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, that Latter-day Saints use that as an easy cop out. I don't see serious apologists appeal to mistranslation very often. They usually address the issue head on by analyzing Bible verses using the same tools that other scholars use.
@@BenjaminYWarner They actually do use it, especially when the Joseph Smith translation backs up the current theology of the church. Look up the apologist explanations regarding John 4:24 and 1 Corinthians 7. Also, I have seen many apologists take issue with changing the name of Lucifer to "Day Star" in Isaiah 14:12 even though that is the correct rendition of the name (a KJV error). However, I do admit that they do not always use this as a defense, and they most certainly attempt to address contradictions with the Bible using other avenues and logic. Thank you for your comment.
Mythos Aurelius is a fitting name for a Deceiver and Accuser of the Brethren. Mythos's writings are all based on his interpretation. This is his faith/belief. 1 Nephi 1:1-17 can be fact checked. You may want to read the book, Lehi's Journey in the Wilderness. Everything you have written is a Myth/your opinion. Every person who watches this should know and understand this. Mythos says in this video, That's just sort of my take, that's just sort of my opinion. I have had personal confirmation by the power of the Holy Ghost many times that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is True and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. BTW, that is the only way anyone can know if it is true. No one can prove it intellectually or, disprove it intellectually.
This is a Fact, By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them. Are the fruits of Joseph Smith's writing Good, or Evil?
So this is your opinion. Your feelings don’t make it fact. This episode was about what non-member scholars think about LDS truth claims so obviously it is his opinion. Everything in religion is someone’s beliefs. And Lehi in the wilderness can be fact checked and is full of myth and hopes.
@@mormonishpodcast1036 It is a Fact that by their fruits ye shall know them. That is not opinion. Lehi's journey in the wilderness is described in the Book of Mormon. Therefore you can now go to that land and retrace the trail based on what is written in the Book of Mormon. That is also Fact.
The more Mythos talks on this video interview the more he reveals his ignorance. The guy is a total dork.
I like it when people like are on this video tell the LDS People what they believe. You people are Total Idiots.
I usually love your podcast but I can’t really take what Mythos said/wrote seriously when he’s hiding behind the screen. Why hide when he claims he’s never a Mormon?
I actually wanted to be completely anonymous. I didn't even want to admit that, but there is a lot about the internals of your faith that I don't know, so I felt the need to at least disclose that detail.
I appreciate your comment but don’t understand why someone showing their face makes a difference. We have invited multiple scholars on our show who refuse to come on because if they are seen as discrediting a religion they are attacked as anti-religious and it can have repercussions on their career so they refuse our invitation. I don’t feel we should dismiss a scholar simply for not wanting to be on camera, at least they are willing to speak. This is a podcast and half our audience only listens to the show so why would showing himself on video be important? I think all of us post Mormons take the Gospel Topics Essays seriously and they are all written anonymously but we focus on what they say rather than who said it. We ask every guest how they want to appear on our show and respect their request and would hope others do as well. There are many reasons people may not want to be shown on camera (we have several in an upcoming episode) so we try to respect each persons privacy. Thanks for listening.
The book of mormon is true but the lds church and there off shoots are not.
That's a unique position. What makes you think it is true beyond personal feeling/Holy Ghost? I am genuinely curious. Are you COC?
Slippery slope. More than one person who held this position eventually discovered that indeed the BofM is not true.
... true like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and StarWars