วีดีโอ

Interesting. In what way?

​@@readitbom By way of the 3 Nephites and John. All 4 were to remain on the earth, and all were apostles of Christ. Thus, the church's claim to the complete removal of the Priesthood( thus why it is called the great Apostasy), or even the church being removed at all, could not have happened. If it did, then God and Christ are liars. Either way, not a good look.

​@@sertinduhm6378their teachings, prophecies, healings, etc... were rejected by the people as the work of the devil or false. Death is ancillary to rejection.

Wow. That's a bad argument. Read 2 Nephi 27-29 the Book of Mormon clearly teaches an apostasy and a Restoration. This link answers your misunderstanding about the 3 Nephites: www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Since_John_the_Apostle_and_the_three_Nephites_did_not_die%2C_then_how_could_there_have_been_a_%22complete_apostasy%22_on_the_earth%3F

@@readitbom I hope that was in response to @sertinduhm6378, and not me. I am on your side

Time to stop drinking the Mormon Kool-Aid.

Him: Tries to be cool by mocking "Mormons" and claiming they are brainwashed. Also him: Can't give a naturalistic explanation for how we have the Book of Mormon (all of its ancient connections), the unwavering testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, Joseph Smith's Enoch text, the connections between the LDS temple endowment and ancient temple practices, etc.

​@@markkrispin6944mmmm,mmmm,mmm, tasty!

I didn't "mention the crystals." That was in the "Mormon info pamphlet." I have no issue with Joseph using a Seer Stone. He used it to focus himself on the power of God, by which the translation actually happened. The thing is, we have the Book of Mormon and no naturalistic explanation accounts for how we have it. It's complex and has ancient connections & properties.

I'm pretty sure he heard it from a preacher and then went home and read it more to ponder on it. I've heard that from multiple places.

I never heard that he had heard it first before reading it. Interesting

Yes, I forgot to mention that the Reorganized church wasn't reorganized immediately. It took some years before they did that.

Time to stop drinking the Mormon Kool-Aid.

@@markkrispin6944 It is far better than Atheist vinegar and Evangelical tobacco juice.

​@@TheYgdsOh please. At least I am smart enough not to be brainwashed into believing in a 19th century fairy tale written by con men. 😂

Him: claims he's smarter than LDS because he knows their prophet was a conman Also him: Can't give a naturalistic explanation for how we have the Book of Mormon (all of its ancient connections), the unwavering testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, Joseph Smith's Enoch text, the connections between the LDS temple endowment and ancient temple practices, etc. 😂😂

"Ancient populations in Iceland,[45] Great Britain,[46] and the Near East[47] are examples of people that existed but have not left a genetic profile that can be detected in modern populations.[48]" mormonr.org/qnas/37RI8b/dna_and_the_book_of_mormon?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiArfauBhApEiwAeoB7qE_ulwsK-E_DEYaCik7GxNBcOVe0MOXV3EdU9Qzdc3ztwNcmjDrC7xoCpUAQAvD_BwE Check the footnotes in the link.

That's just false. Your bias is blinding you. www.lightandtruthletter.org/

@@readitbom show us the Book of Mormon museum and artifacts. They had huge societies. With large armies. Like the ones in Rome. We can still see much of that there. Why not here?

1% of the new world has been excavated. Get back to me when there's more on the ground work done to uphold your very shaky "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" argument.

@@readitbom the church ran archaeology expeditions for years. To every spot the “prophets” said or matched the vivid descriptions in the BOM. Found nothing. And what’s your 1% source?

Renowned Mayan archeologist, the late George Stuart, admitted in a 2011 interview with National Geographic, “You know, there’s almost 6,000 archaeological sites, and we’ve dug at forty of them.”19 (emphasis added) That is less than 1%. He also said, “We hardly know anything, really about the Maya.” Here's the link to the interview: th-cam.com/video/jnP224ZUJWA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=1OakEH5MJwl53f2c

www.lightandtruthletter.org/

The question that should be asked is what is the definition of a "verified" miracle. Can any of Christ's miracles in the New Testament be verified today? I don't think so. I think the reasoning would be 'we have evidence of the Resurrection and the proves Christ is divine and could perform miracles." I point that out to show that any evidence of miracles done by Joseph Smith would be more verifiable than miracles we see in the Gospels. As I pointed out the miraculous events surrounding the dedication of the Kirtland temple are verified by a number of people. The falling stars prophecy would be a prophetic prophecy and not necessarily a miracle. Though it was miraculous that he could have prophesized it.

Funny how we only ever hear the critics say that tapirs "are like big pigs" and never that they are related to horses.

That’s a lame defense

@@johnnyscoolstuff8427 That’s a lame response. Just calling something dumb without providing actual counterpoints for discussion is just empty noise.

"Just like they've done for 150 years." These attacks aren't anything new or special, but with the internet, the critics are able to shout louder than ever and create echo chambers of doubt to make it appear that they have facts on their side. Here's a good resource to help fight about against these echo chambers of hate and falsehoods: www.lightandtruthletter.org/

Deceiving defense? What did I say that was deceiving? You saying that I'm being deceiving and then promoting the CES letter is hilarious.

I know lol, but I record these things at night when my wife and kids are asleep. I don't want to wake them up.

Debates can be good and can be fun. However, I've seen how sometimes new converts of a faith tradition get taken advantage of in debates. Sometimes, it's better for them to wait for a little while before participating in debates. I say this not to say anything about your ability, but to simply express what I've seen in the past.

@@readitbom oh whoops I mean to say would you be open to having a debate with him? You seem very knowledgeable.

I've done an official debate in the past, but at the moment, I'm not seeking to do more. I looked him up, and it seems he mainly talks about social issues.

I appreciate that. Just trying to share a believing viewpoint.

And yet he memorized the rest of it beforehand? I think your logical consistency needs some work. Good thing God's mercy will cover your misconceptions and mine too. Keep on fighting the good fight brother

Because he said "I've never denied the testimony that was print in [the Book of Mormon]" which says he saw and angel, the plates, and heard a voice out of heaven. He's simply saying that testimony is true, I haven't changed it and Murphy is wrong.

@@readitbom why didn’t he specifically refute the idea (which he wasn’t the only one putting out) that the experience was an impression? He read something he didn’t like and made the straw men argument that murphy claimed he denied the testimony. In David’s mind it was “no delusion” it doesn’t mean the vision wasn’t only in his head.

The whole point was that Murphy said Whitmer claimed to see nothing and only have feelings. David completely denies that. He claims: "I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; It was no Delusion. What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.[1].' Delusion - refers to Murphy's attempt to make it seem that David saw nothing and only had feelings. No delusion = I actually saw this. www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_David_Whitmer_tell_John_Murphy_that_the_angel_Moroni_%22had_no_appearance_or_shape%22_and_that_he_saw_%22nothing%22%3F

@@readitbom why are you omitting this part: “It having been represented by one John Murphy of Polo Mo. that I in a conversation with him last Summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.” You are again arguing a straw man. Murphy did not say Whitmer denied his testimony, he only said whitmer confirmed it was an impression. David is refuting something Murphy never claimed. I also find it interesting that he has to refer to a statement that: 1) was written decades before 2) he didn’t write 3) misrepresents the vision since not all 3 were present at the same time Seems to me David just didn’t like how it read and had to come back to claim he was not crazy.

This is very disingenuous. I think it's clear which one of us is making a strawman. You are agreeing with Murphy, and David is saying that isn't the case. He saw an angel as per the statement says. Your attack on the statement is very low level too. David through his life and even on his tombstone proclaimed he saw and angel sent from God to show him the plates.

Firstly, it is completely false that no one saw the plates. That's literally false. If you think that, then you must not have read any firsthand historical accounts. Secondly, Joseph didn't translate through Kinderhook plates. If he had, he would have brought them, and we would have a translation. He didn't, and we don't. All he did was see that a symbol on the plates liked similar to a symbol that he was already familiar with and said that because it's the same symbol the plates must be about what thay symbol means. He didn't translate anything from God about the Kinderhook plates. Here's a video about it: th-cam.com/video/dwxiFAtUSEs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=s-ZGVY_iLn85A_wn

You're almost there. It's easy to see how other religions are false you just have to apply that same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.

All the witnesses left. Many “witnessed” for other churches and “prophets” after seeing and believing Joseph Smith once he was dead. 🤷‍♂️

@@nightman6349 I did. That’s exactly how I landed at Catholicism last year.

Yes, the 3 witnesses left the church and some of the 8 witnesses did as well. 2 of the 3 witnesses returned to the church years later. None ever denied their testimony. "Many" didn't support other prophets. That's not true.

@@readitbom Let’s start with David Whitmer. Do you want to list his resume? Or would you like me to do it?

Did you write it? You are trying to sell it on every forum. And it never has anything to do with any comment in any comment section. OCD much? 😅

Your interpretation is that in the devils temptation that "you will become as gods knowing good and evil" was a lie. But the devil and mix truths with lies. We see at the end of Genesis 3 that God himself says "they have become as one of us knowing good from evil." This wasn't a lie, but a truth mixed with the devil's lie that eating the fruit wasn't bad and that they wouldn't die. LDS believe that we become like Christ. The Bible says we can become joint-heirs with Christ. Christ says that those who overcome will sit on His throne. This is how we become gods. It is through coming unto Christ and becoming like Him through his grace, mercy, and power.

That's a very weak attack on LDS doctrine. The 3 Nephites and John don't currently have priesthood authority over the church. We don't teach that, nor does the Book of Mormon. The apostasy is about who has priesthood authority over the church. During the apostasy likewise, yes these 4 were alive. But they didn't have authority over the church to actively lead and guide the church. The apostasy did happen and the BOM in no way disproves it.

@@readitbom youre joking, right? The LDS claims that the great apostasy was the removal of the Priesthood from the earth, thus the "restoration." Furthermore, the claim of the LDS church is that no other church has said priesthood, and is thereby unauthorized to act in God's name. I have never heard of an Apostle having their priesthood authority removed if they were righteous, and the BOM does not state that their authority was removed either. Lastly, if not even Apostles have authority to actively lead the church by permission from God, then your church right now is false. You just dug a bigger hole than you realize.

So many problems here. This isn't negative evidence. Stowell's comments are great for the Book of Mormon as they prove that day one, Joseph had plates. The "greenish" color he saw has many clear answers. They plates weren't pure gold. The people who push that are the critics who need the gold plates to be 100% gold in order to claim that they weighed 200 pounds. However, everyone that handled the plates says they were between 50-70 pounds. That weight with the dimensions of the plates we have lead us to deduce that the plates weren't 24 karat gold. Tumbaga is a kind of alloy that looks like gold (so much that it fooled the spanish), is lighter than gold, and can tarnish to a greenish color at times. th-cam.com/video/MEP_lM6RNqY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=QHEzqxGTTpUZhKIz The JST is definitely not negative evidence. The Book of Moses is part of the JST and has one of the most clear examples of Joseph Smith's prophetic ability, Joseph Smith's Enoch. This Enoch account literally has direct names, specific words, and the same themes as other Enochic literature that WAS ONLY FOUND, KNOWN, DISCOVERED 50-80 years after his (Joseph Smith's) death. Critics try to say, well, 1 Enoch was already discovered, so he got it from that, but he couldn't have. Joseph Smith's Enoch has parallels to 2 Enoch and the Enochic Book of the Giants. These two books are different from 1 Enoch. Meaning any parallels to them couldn't have been by using 1 Enoch. There's, to this day, no naturalistic explanation on how Joseph got these things right. We can't bring up the JST without mentioning his Enoch account because that's kind of omitting a very important part of the JST. So what is the JST? The answer to this question resolves what you bring up about it. The JST is a combination of pure revelation (Book of Moses/the Enoch account) that isn't found in biblical manuscripts and an inspired reading/commentary on the KJV. Many changes in the JST are simply changing words like which and who. Other changes are to give an inspired reading to the text that will help the reader better understand what is meant by the passage. Not every change in the JST comes from Adam Clarke, so you can't word your critique in that way. Joseph, using the Adam Clarke commentary, isn't evidence of deceitful behavior, it's simply Joseph studying the best books in order to help himself receive inspiration. Also, plagiarism means there is intent to publish something completely as one's own work, but we don't have evidence of this. Joseph didn't prepare a copy of his translation for publication. He very well could have given credit to Adam Clarke then. So you can't make that assertion confidently. This should answer your question about KJV verses in the BoM: th-cam.com/video/h0-REk58Hvk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ly22eNtHaenie2Cx The Book of Mormon was a functional translation. The above video explains this using the BoM scribal manuscript. Also, it's not just Emma's testimony that says there were no books or scripts. Cowdery, Whiter, and Harris all witnessed the translation and never saw any materials being used in the process. Also, non-believers saw Joseph while translating and saw there weren't any papers, books, or scripts. So you have that wrong.

If we're going into "clear explanations" about Stowell’s green plates I can assert simpler alternatives. The size and color is consistent w/ 19th century books. Foolscap printing paper folded into "signatures" is exactly 8x6, same size described by those handling them in the frock and bag. Common book binding material in 19th century is a material painted with copper acetoarsenite (emerald green). This explanation can posit books already in the bag. It can bolsters the appearance of plates w/ the books as filler - perhaps placed under smaller manufactured plates. (Sealed portion perhaps?) On plagiarism I mean it in the sense of copying someone else's work, which has a couple forms. JST: Clarke makes suggested changes that Smith implements. Suggested sentence structure, order, and word substitutions of Clarke’s. Ex: change the word "Unicorn", to Hebrew word "Reem" (rhinoceros) is exactly what happens in JST. This form of plagiarism is idea plagiarism. JST plagiarism bolsters the argument that a pattern of plagiarism exists. BoM is another form - the form of direct copying. KJV italics are the translator hints to the reader those words are not in the Greek; they are to make the english sentence work. Most today don't know this and likely most in the early 19th didn't either. In both cases there is no mention by the scribes in the room of the plagiarized books, yet it's irrefutable with modern analysis and textual review, that they were there. Unless we want to lean on dogma that God is beaming the 1769 KJV translation words directly into Joseph's head/stone, word for word, in which case, why put it in the BoM at all? It's already "perfectly preserved" in the 1769 KJV. Scribes themselves mention Joseph isn't always in the same room they're recording in. Many occasions Joseph is in the other room dictating, or upstairs, or behind a curtain etc. These are opportunities to use other texts. We can't dismiss the opportunity without introducing our dogmas to combat them.

@@readitbom Ohhh... That's pretty low to block me and my comments when I'm making an honest, non-rhetorical, case here about your own statement. Now I can understand and see clearly that you are not honest in your engagement on this platform. This is not your mission. If you are hoping to stand up against things someone like Trent is saying, your going to have to go outside FAIR to find where guys like Trent are getting their arguments. You're going to have to grapple with the fact that some of them are valid, and while Trent doesn't understand the details of them very well, he's not fully wrong either. I recommend you not become a historian and you seek an apologetic path instead. It will be mentally healthier for you. Good luck to you with your future. Peace out. ✌️

This theory sounds fascinating on paper, but has no basis in the facts of the matter. The 8 witnesses held real plates. The three saw an angel. The fact that Joseph Smith had plates is uncontestable. There's also no evidence of him faking plates or scripting out the story of the Book of Mormon. In other words, your theory in light of this and other evidence doesn't explain how we have the Book of Mormon. There's no naturalistic explanation that gives an answer for all the facts we have.

This is literally false. The Pharisees said the Apostles stole Jesus' body. Using your logic we have to believe them because they said. There's literally no evidence of Joseph using a script while translating.

@@readitbom There's tons of corroborating evidence that Smith plagerized. His own brother went to an elite school for Biblical languages, and his cousin was one of the founding professors. The Smith clan was known for fraud, and had everything they needed to plagerise a book and start a church. That's what people from that area were doing! Read some history. Over 90 witnesses in NY and PA signed affidavits UNDER OATH that the Smiths were fraudsters. That's why the Smith's fled to the lawless fronteir. Like Joel Osteen, they were more successful than they thought they would be.

Do some research on where these "credible affidavits" came from: www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Hurlbut_affidavits Funny how these affidavits you claim are true support a view that Joseph couldnt have been the author of the Book, so it had to be Solomon Spalding (which theory has been proven false), yet you claim it was Joseph. No one at that time believed Joseph could have written the Book. Now your claim is "the people who I trust to tell me the truth in the affidavits don't kown what they are talking about, Joseph actually was smart enough to write it." So which is it? Are you right and the affidavits wrong? If so why are they credible?

@@readitbomSlow down and try to think better and more carefully. Firstly , I was referring to the 90+ SWORN AFFIDAVITS that Howe documented. Your own source shows that Joseph confirmed them and basically said eloquently : "WELL, EVERYONE ELSE WAS DOING IT" : Your own source says that Smith said: "During this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies". Secondly, Keep in mind that Joseph was still SCAMMING people for YEARS after he claimed to meet God. HINT: people who meet God don't do that.

@@readitbom Slow down and try to think better. I was referring to the 90+ SWORN AFFIDAVITS that Howe documented. Your own source says that Joseph confirmed it. He basically said eloquently "WELL, EVERYONE ELSE WAS DOING IT". Also, keep in mind that Joseph was scamming people for years after he claimed to meet God. Hint: people who actually meet God don't scam people in occult money digging

You are quote mining just like Trent Horn does. Your opening quote isn't from "church history" is from this article on the Church's website: www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/witnesses-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng You pull that quote and make it sound like the church is doubting the witnesses. That's not the case. The next sentence says, "Though the reports of their statements vary in some details, they are generally consistent and adhere closely to the revelation’s instructions." Also the article concludes as follows: "Despite differences with Joseph Smith that led each of the Three Witnesses to part ways individually with the Church (Cowdery and Harris later returned), they continued to affirm their testimony as witnesses throughout their lives. Each of the Eight Witnesses likewise reaffirmed his testimony of examining the plates, though some eventually became estranged from the Church. The combined weight of their numerous statements, given over many years and despite their changing attitudes toward Joseph Smith and the Church, is a powerful witness of the reliability of the statements they published in the Book of Mormon." Also, we aren't trying to cast doubt on the Resurrection. We believe in it. We just want to point out that other Christians are so ready to accept the evidence for the resurrection, which rests completely on eye witness testimony. The Book of Mormon has more extant eye witness testimony than we have for the resurrection. Also, the gospels aren't eye witness testimony (maybe the gospel of John, but Trent Horn conceded in the debate that most scholars don't think that John wrote the Gospel of John). Eye witness testimony is firsthand testimony from the people that saw the thing. The Gospels are secondhand. So we have more firsthand eyewitnesses for the Book of Mormon.

@@readitbom the point about witness statements is clear. I chose that quotation as each statement should be examined on their merits and some are stronger statements than others. The longer quote you have used makes one statement at the beginning then affirms the veracity of the witnesses statements without adequately providing satisfactory evidence. It's like me saying don't give full weight to the words of everyone because their evidence is not of equal worth but accept it anyway as they are a witness. I think there is a valuable lesson here on how to test the worth of a witness's statement. Remember I am not here trying to prove or not prove your case I just want you to give a better more focused TH-cam video that illustrates your points more effectively. Remember you are the one defending a case I am one of the audience, thanks by the way. It makes me want to do my own research and attempt to fully understand who the witnesses were, and if they can be trusted or not. I might do my own TH-cam video. Cheers.

@@WeeGrahamsaccount No. "I saw it with my spiritual eyes" is completely muddling the discussion, because ALL of the witnesses say they saw them and saw them just as they can see _anything_.

God can tell you to build a mansion but not fool around with other women?

If you think Joseph Smith's polygamy was about "fooling around with other women" then you clearly haven't looked at the facts of Joseph Smith's polygamy. Here's a good place to do research so that you can get an informed opinion: josephsmithspolygamy.org/

​@@readitbomYou are the one who hasn't looked into the facts about the polygamy. Joseph was fooling around with other women. The BOM makes it clear what the purpose of Polygamy was, which is to have more kids. Furthermore, D&C lists the rules of polygamy, which Joseph did not follow. We have a hand written letter by Joseph himself, that shows that he was trying to get with other women and to stay away if Emma was to show up. Emma also hated the concept of polygamy. I wonder why? There is absolutely zero reasons why Joseph should have been sealed to another man's wife, and yet he did this multiple times. To say Joseph was not fooling around is proof that you don't actually research things before declaring something is either true or false. You are just using emotions to declare what feels good to you.

​@@readitbom You haven't looked into JS polygamy. It absolutely was about abusing women and children

@@readitbom Oh please. Smith was a sexual predator who used his sexual power to gain what he wanted from women. Any idiot knows that!

Well yeah people can point out flaws in other religions but ignore the faults in their own. The BoM isn't true DNA and archeology proves it's not.

How many miracles are attributed to Joseph Smith? How many miracles are attributed to faith in Christ and are documented by the Catholic church for over 2000 years??? A reasonable person would favor the community that has insurmountable evidence in favor of the community instead of ambiguous mystical texts from seeing stones.

​@joseflores8391 you might want to read The Saints, and other historic lds church books. Joseph performed many miracles just like other true prophets.

​@@nightman6349this argument has been debunked multiple times. Check out ward radio and scripture central.

@@Goodlookingjedi I'll give it a read. Thank you for the recommendation.

So being charitable is lying and spreading falsehoods? Interesting. Also, funny you can't give a naturalistic explain for the Book of Mormon, yet you claim it's "clearly and utterly indefensible." Using Trent's argumentation of just believing any and all claim antagonistic towards the Book of Mormon simply because it was said, makes the Pharisees' claim that the Apostles stole the body irrefutable. I guess we are all wrong. Please do research.

@@readitbomI am a Catholic convert from Mormonism. I don’t know anywhere in the debate where Trent lied; however there were multiple place where Hansen outright lies or severely obfuscates the truth. My personal favorite Mormon “white-lie” is the Adam-God “theory” that is still taught to this day in the Mormon temple ceremony! In Mormon cosmology Elohim directs “Jehovah” and Michael [the Archangel] to create earth before “Michael” becomes “Adam,” making this version of Michael a Gnostic demiurge on his way to godhood, evidently with godlike powers of creation already and not an angel (which is a created being, not a creator, and not a resurrected man). While only shown in the Temple this is totally in line with mainstream LDS theology: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.” The Mormon epistemological framework is so twisted most Mormon’s themselves can’t distinguish the difference between truth and falsehood, so I doubt Hansen is even fully aware of his lies.

So you didn't watch my video where I literally lay out what Trent said and then explained how many of his statements were clearly straight lies or lies through major omission or quoting mining. Also, saying you were once a Latter-day saint and then commenting what you did seems to put into doubt how much you knew when you were a Latter-day Saint. With all respect, a number of the things you assert are just wrong. For example, you seem to not know the definition of the "Adam-God theory." The Adam-God theory is that Adam is God the Father the Father of Jesus. LDS, don't teach this and have rejected it. Our temples in no way suggest this. It isn't the Adam-God theory to say that "as man now is God once was and has God now is man may be". This is in reference to how Jesus became incarnated so did the Father previously, and their goal is to help us become like them. The whole of our scripture teaches that God's will is help us become like Him and His Son. That's not Adam-God. Also, it's not Adam-God that Adam was given authority to help with the creation of this earth. All of our scriptures teach that the universe was created by Christ. To claim otherwise is to show ignorance of LDS scripture. Furthermore, to claim Adam is a demiurge is simply a dumb claim to make. He didn't created the universe. He was given authority by God and Christ to help in some way. We don't know what that looks like. We don't believe that Adam created anything by himself or through his own power. It was Christ, and if Christ allowed others to help in his creation, praise to glory be to Christ.

@@readitbom I did listen to your whole video. All I heard is you calling Trent a liar for not framing Mormon arguments and assertions in a perfectly Mormon affirming way (which as Trent is not a Mormon, is totally normal). I am perfectly aware that in Mormon cosmology Adam isn’t the “father” Elohim (which is why I used the term “demiurge”), but he [Micheal] is on the way to becoming his own exalted God, and as he is an active participant with Elohim in the creation of the earth and its creatures (until becoming Adam) this is Mormon semantics. Mormon cosmology and epistemology are self-defeating via infinite regress (among others). There’s just no way around it, and no amount of misdirection down theological rabbit holes, or but whatabout’s can change it, or square it with biblical teaching. Even if there is no literal God and “God” is just a psychological model humans need for epistemological justification… Mormonism is still wrong, incoherent, and self-refuting. The Information Age killed Mormonism and affirmed Catholicism. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. I hope you come home someday.

@murphysmuskets So you affirm: - using statements as fact when the person that made the statement claims they didn't make it And -quoting mining as to rob a quote from the proper context Trent did this and much more, but you seem to think doing the above is completely fine. Also, not all LDS believe in infinite regression, but even believing in it doesn't prove the death of our theology. Saying that is the same as saying the problem of evil kills Classical Theism. Saying it doesn't make it so even though both statements are complicated topics.

It demonstrates how he doesn't take "mormonism" seriously, he couldn't be bothered to read any of the books he claimed to have perused. Then, it was terribly bad form releasing a video that just doubles down on his thoroughly debunked assertions. There are "good" arguments against the Book of Mormon, but so many that are put out there are just trash. The antis need to pick a lane when it comes to it, and they can't pick the "Joseph was a Genius" lane, because that might actually give us some credit. However, arguing Joseph was a theological genius is the only way to explain any of what happened without taking him (or everyone else at the time) at their word. I'm disappointed in Trent. We take Catholicism seriously, no one else affords us the same courtesy, and it shows.

Amen to both of yall's comments.

There is absolutely direct evidence of plagiarism. Look at multiple locations in Moroni that directly plagiarize the writings of Paul (for instance Moroni 7 compared to 1 Corinthians 13). There are also areas of Moroni 10 that plagiarize 1 Corinthians as well. Even if I grant the premise of the Isaiah chapters in 2 Nephi as being from the brass plates (which still doesn’t explain why they include known KJV translation errors), and Jesus somehow giving the Sermon on the Mount, you can’t tell me that they somehow had a copy of 1 Corinthians to copy as well seeing as how that was written on the other side of the world after Jesus supposedly visited the Nephites.

@@austinnajar It makes sense that God would share the same gospel with all his children. It shouldn't be surprising to see God share the same messages (even word for word at times) to different peoples at different times. It also makes sense for Joseph Smith to recognize the Isaiah chapters from the brass plates and to translate them the same as the KJV translations he was very familiar with. Either way, the vast majority of the BOM is not a simple reiteration of old testament chapters or of Christ's new testament teachings (though these are important parts of the BOM), it is a record of God's dealings with his children on the American continent. However, I think your arguments are in bad faith. I don't think you are actually looking for truth, just surface level attacks to satisfy your bigotry. The only way you can truly know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is to read it with true intent and a heart open to the spirit of God. The Book of Mormon is God's word. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's restored church on the earth.

@@koko00713 a few problems with your argument: First, there’s no other place in recorded scripture where God repeats himself virtually word of word. You don’t see Peter and Paul quoting each other verbatim. So it is surprising, and a little disturbing to see that in the Book of Mormon. Second, Mormon church leaders admit that Joseph Smith didn’t translate from the plates but rather a seer stone in a hat that had the words appear to him. If he was truly divinely inspired in that translation, shouldn’t God have fixed the manual translation errors when quoting Isaiah? And it was good faith searching and trying to find truth that eventually led me out of Mormonism. I never wanted to leave the church. I started researching these things in an attempt to get a friend who left the church to come back to it. It wasn’t until God opened my eyes that I was able to see it wasn’t actually true. I pray someday you will come to see that as well. Just know that when you do (which statistics show you’re more than likely going to leave the church eventually), Jesus is still there. Mormonism might be false but Jesus is not. Salvation is available to you by grace and is received by placing your full faith in Jesus, repenting of your sin, including the sin of your own religiosity and following false prophets, and asking Jesus to save you.

Thanks for the feedback!