วีดีโอ

This is where the apologist might make reference to hebraisms, chiasmus, and other evidence lacking claims about the Book of Mormon.

@@jaybravo2199 No, those are all good enough claims, but they aren't germane to the central claim made in this video; which claim needs the contrast to Joseph's capabilities in order to be valid. As I said, I think one can back up the notion Joseph did not possess the intellectual gifts necessary to produce the Book of Mormon, I just don't think anyone has done so comprehensively. It's been done it in part, a minor analysis here, a paper there, but nothing that ties it all together to my knowledge. I am not your ally, Jay. These are short apologetic videos, and my intent, unlike you, isn't to tear them down, it is to point out where improvement may be required.

@@TheYgds I'm not looking for an ally Ygds... I also agree that so much more needs to be done to improve these videos... so much more. Often times Jasmine, or whomever writes her scripts, fails to provide a complete and an honest comprehensive approach when discussing The Book of Mormon. I come from the position that truth should always be shared, even when that truth isn't convenient to ones belief system. Often times, I may come across as what many refer to as an ti mormon, but I honestly want this channel to present the complete story, not cherry picked points meant to bolster a faith affirming position. For people who struggle with a faith crisis, its often made worse when people they may reference as trusted sources of information are shown to be providing an incomplete answer. It foster feelings of mistrust. If anything, I believe critics *_AND_* believers should be demanding the same standard of information from Jasmine.

1. Because people rejected the truth, so God laid the foundation of a restoration. He also ensured that everybody who ever lived on the earth would have a chance to hear the gospel. 2. In other words, the Trinity is a non-Biblical doctrine. I'm glad we agree on that. 3. Solo Scriptura is also a non-Biblical concept. The Book of Mormon also is limited to the fundamental Doctrine of Christ. A lot of doctrine does not appear in it, so fortunately, it too is not Solo Scriptura. 4. The corruption began shortly after Christ's resurrection. You may have heard of this guy named Paul who wrote a bunch of letters fighting against it. 5. Because of Priesthood Keys.

The Missionaries are famously inept with ideas like the "Great Apostasy", and to be honest, I don't think most of us have a good grasp of it, Robert Boylan might be the best resource on that subject I know of. There were two major stipulations raised during Joseph's lifetime usually concerned the Creeds, that the creeds began and perpetuated a divergence from true doctrine and sequestered Priesthood keys into unworthy hands. Some think the apostasy started right after the Apostles deaths (I think that's silly) and that's what missionaries are often told. I've heard some theories about when it finally was complete, but estimations usually center around the late 3rd Century to early 4th Century AD. I've heard rumors that a BYU Professor opined that the final true Bishop was Saint Nicholas. That reduces the time period by a few hundred years at least. The next place of stipulation was that the "soul" of Christianity had become corrupt, the "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof". This one is less doctrinal and more sociological, and was likely emphasized because of the rapacious persecution of the early members of the Church by the time the official "Joseph Smith History" account of the First Vision was published. The point being made was that there was a pretending to Christian values that wasn't being honored. To many, the persecution was evidence enough of a great apostasy. Why did God wait? I'm not so sure He did. Fragmentation of the Christian program has been the norm since it was founded. Certainly since the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Perhaps the reformers were inspired, but due to their own stubbornness or inculturation couldn't receive the revelations required to lead an effective restoration. Perhaps they were instruments to set the preconditions required for a restoration. Perhaps the Catholic and Orthodox (maybe even the Lutherans, Anglicans and other smaller claimants) still have some vestiges of priestly authority, just not everything, and have been maintaining a bulwark against Satan. People have to be able to receive truth and be prepared to have it, that can take generations to accomplish after truth is forcefully stamped out, which the councils essentially did. The divinity of Jesus is not argued against by any sensible Latter-Day Saint. We argue against the trinitarian synthesis which makes several philosophical claims about God's nature which we do not accept. Specifically, we believe in three separate beings in the Godhead that are comprised of the same type of substance*(that' deserves extensive discussion I can't do here, spirit matter vs physical matter is at the edges of our doctrinal meditations) but not the same substance, they are not simple but have parts and passions, yet maintain a unity of such exquisite completeness that we cannot rightly call them separate "gods" but must call them one God. We also place no species distinction between our own consciousness or intelligence and that of the beings in the Godhead. We believe we are co-eternal with God, but not co-equal, and this congruity of nature is what permits us through eternal progress to grow into becoming the sorts of beings that God is, by unifying ourselves to Christ. On the subject of "3 heavens", another subject that requires a lot of discussion to completely get right. It is simultaneously a doctrine of eschatology regarding the resurrection, a view of the facets of the reality we inhabit and a representation of God's views of the human family and eternal judgement. Paul used the doctrine in 1 Corinthians to explain concepts around the resurrection, emphasizing the difference between the earthly and the heavenly. He also talks about one "caught up" to the "third heaven" which has been debated a bit by people on what the appropriate exegesis is for that. I think Christ taught the concept a few times in his parables, most notably the parable of the sower. The idea of "Kingdoms of Glory" or levels of ascent and spiritual condition as one advances towards God isn't new, it is in Jacobs ladder, and recapitulated by Isaiah's vision of the Seraphim before the throne of God. The doctrine we talk about is not best understood through the lens of the scripture in which it is made explicit (D&C 76 if you wanted to read it yourself), but through the rites of the Temple. Matthew 22:30 is an interesting case, since the Sadducees are making a sort of trite accusation regarding marriage, and asking about how it applies to the resurrection. The question they're asking imply that something regarding marriage in the resurrection was being taught, and they thought it was nonsense. Then the legalistic case being presented of seven husbands that each die after marriage to this one poor widow. We don't dispute the Lord's answer, we just argue he was answering a different question than what many people assume. He was answering for what happens with secular-mortal unions, especially since He reminded them that their question stems from a misunderstanding of the scriptures. His reference to "marrying and giving in marriage" is poignant since it is a reference to the goings on before the flood, where quite a lot of unions were not approved by God. A lot could be said about that, but we agree that those who only have the mark of the world upon their unions will be separate in the resurrection and be like the Angels. From D&C 132:15-17; 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

There isn't really any archeological evidence. HOWEVER, there have been things such as copper plates (it was thought for decades that Native Americans never made things like plates with metal) but they all date from 800-1600 AD, way after the events of The Book of Mormon.

@@MeatGoblin88 thanks for sharing all that. My request was in jest

@@MeatGoblin88 Yes and no. Archeologists, anthropologists and society in general have long acknowledged metal was known and used by native Americans. The tribes in the eastern USA in particular were known to wear copper gorgets and plates when the first post columbian contact was made. Copper plate like artifacts have been removed from sites well before America was the USA. I'm not sure if you can validate your claim "*it was thought for decades that Native Americans never made things like plates with metal*", but I'd be interested in seeing your citations. A few things to note... all the copper plates discovered in the Americas to date do not contain any sort of script or writing. While Native Americans did indeed use metal, there is no evidence anywhere that they used any forges, smelting or other advanced metallurgy, but rather exclusively processed copper through a process called annealing.

@@jaybravo2199 Honestly I mainly worded it that way because I don't want to be rude on this channel as I'm not LDS. Some of the plates had inscriptions that could maybe be interpreted as symbols, but definitely not a writing system, regardless it was a long time after the destruction of the nephites. However I don't see the point in arguing archeology when Mormons/Christians/Jews all believe in an omnipotent god... That seems like a tougher pill to swallow than a lack of archeological or genetic evidence. For example we don't know who built teotihuacan, so why argue over archeology when there's a ton of other wild things in the book of Mormon and Bible

@@MeatGoblin88 thank you for being respectful... that is often lost on this channel as members and non-members alike attack each other rather than point their criticism towards the church and it's apologetics. As far as arguing over archeology, The Book of Mormon's truth claims are directly tied to a few alleged multi-million numbered societies including one which is a literal telling of the Tower of Babel. Those societies have very little credible evidence of existing. This channel is guilty of quasi-science and cherry picking facts to try to fit it into a faith affirming story. Such an approach can be called dishonest, and can actually go on to the detriment of questioning members.

Thank you! I'm critical of the church's truth claims and I try to add a voice of reason to many of these videos. At times, I assume to much of what is claimed to be true... such as the claim that it would be difficult to keep track of so many dates. While there are plenty of examples in recent history of people doing just that who have a similar education of Joseph Smith, its just as important to remember that its not as difficult to do as this content creator claims.

Was she wrong? Also, that’s not even true. Apologists in my experience focus on all sorts of things. Maybe this is just a more convincing argument BEcause it’s a myopic perspective. It’s usually how it is

@@thatonedude.8440 I tried to post a longer reply, but I’m assuming it didn’t pass moderator standards. She’s using the idea that it would have been difficult to keep track of an alleged complex timeline, thus using that as an evidentiary stance in support of the Book of Mormon. There are multiple examples of similar authors who lack an education and produce complex books with involved themes in short periods of time. That is the myopic problem with this videos approach… if a complex timeline is evidence of a divine source, that same standard of evidence also applies to those other books as well.

@@jaybravo2199 LOL Bruh, _"There are multiple examples of similar authors who lack an education and produce complex books with involved themes in short periods of time"_ is completely false. Name one. _"if a complex timeline is evidence of a divine source, that same standard of evidence also applies to those other books as well"_ This is a false equivalence fallacy. Books like Harry Potter or LOTR or others never have claimed to be of divine origin. Which speaking of, I would say those are complex books but they had years of planning and many different drafts and notes before publication. Also, It is one of many evidences of divine origin, not the sole reason for it. Most people aren't going to use just this as a reason and bring up many others.

@@dylanwilliams2202 LOL Bruh right back at you. I never mentioned Harry Potter or LOTR as evidentiary examples... you have done what many have called "strawmanning". Noice. I've tried to post exact examples, but it appears that those examples may have prompted a removal. Pearl Lenore Curran was an author in the early 20th century who wrote many books in similar fashion to JS and the BoM. Her many books written are just a few examples of many which fall into the realm of apologetic claims regarding the Book of Mormon.

@@jaybravo2199 _"you have done what many have called "strawmanning"_ No, What I have done is what many call "giving examples". I brought those 2 specifically because they are popular, complex and they took years of planning before being written. Do I need to rehash the conversation? _"Pearl Lenore Curran was an author in the early 20th century who wrote many books in similar fashion to JS and the BoM"_ This is just false. I don't know what you are considering "in a similar fashion" but nothing about how she wrote her books is similar to Joseph Smith besides a super natural element. Her books don't include anything that would indicate that it was written in 1600 English as claimed while the Book of Mormon has many things that indicate Hebrew origin. Why is it that you all make some of the most broadest claims like this and think you have disproven the Book of Mormon when any sort of intellectual honesty would prove otherwise?

My grandfather used to say that its easy to explain the unexplained with the unexplained... but once the unexplained has a proper understanding, it suddenly becomes less mysterious or miraculous. Think of an amazing magic trick before and after the gimmick is revealed. I would recommend every honest student of the Book of Mormon look into an phenomenon called "automatic writing". One example is that of Patience Worth. She was an early 20th century author who used this technique to produce a book titled, "The Sorry Tale". Patience would regularly sit down with a scribe and produce 2,500 -3,000 words in a single evening. Her book was published with a similar amount of edits as The Book of Mormon. Like Joseph Smith, she lacked any formal education. The Sorry Tale had complex themes, names, timelines, and was over 600 pages when published. This is one of many, many examples of books written in history which produced seemingly complex books with accompanying timelines, names, and alleged historical accuracy using techniques almost identical to what Joseph Smith used. If we are to count the timelines Joseph Smith used to allegedly translate the Book of Mormon, that same evidentiary standard should be applied to other seemingly and often more complex books written in similar fashion. A common technique used by apologists is to place a myopic focus on one small point ignoring other relevant pieces of information and drawing out a faith affirming answer... this video is no different. However, when a wider more inclusive approach is applied, more plausible and reasonable explanations quickly overshadow a wished for faithful answer. I don't know if automatic writing was used to produce the Book of Mormon, but it is a plausible explanation which is based on real world examples which would easily explain away the evidence presented by Jasmine in this video.

Yes, they want us to start including these at church

My favorite part of being a former member of the church... being referred to was swine.

I am really sorry to hear this because so many people feel just as you do, and the church isn't helping the situation by explaining what is supposed to be happening that the endowment only symbolizes. I don't blame you for feeling this way. I hope that someday people will be able to get the accurate information that they need. The temple endowment is totally symbolic of what should actually be happening in your own life. The tokens and covenants in the temple are simply placeholders for things that you actually supposed to be learning from the Lord.

@@MegaJohn144 I'm assuming you are a member... thank you for you measured and reasonable response!

I can't believe I never made that connection myself. thank you.