As a never-mo who's followed Mormon Stories for years, I've adopted Sandra as my grandma, and this podcast is like a meeting at her house. With tea, coffee for the rebels, and cookies.
Sandra Tanner, my BFF and she doesn't even know me. I read NMKMH in 1993. Thanks Gerardo for bringing her on. Merry Christmas one and all from South Africa 🇿🇦🎄🎉💃
Love Sandra. She's a treasure. And Dan Vogel does is fantastic with the historical record. Thank you. I really enjoy some of the episodes with experts talking about truth claims.
I like to bear my testimony and I know this church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet....Among my earliest memories as a child staring over a podium standing on a stool, saying this to 150+ congregation on many occasions. It really bothers me that I had no idea of this man and wired my brain at such a young age to "just believe". Kudos to the incredible panel and to the amazing Gerardo for producing this episode. This was a Christmas treat listening while cooking this morning. Every episode I claim a little more of myself back. Thank you for the great episode.
I was raised Mormon and went on a mission but I wasn’t fully convinced before I left for my mission(the temple did not help) and during my mission to Salt Lake City of all places I got to see behind the curtain(I’ve been in the holy of Holies in the salt lake temple) and learned it’s just about money at this point. When we’d baptize people the church only cared if they were paying tithing as soon as they converted and that they weren’t real converts if they weren’t paying tithing. It blew my mind that we didn’t really care about people’s salvation. I was like “even if this is fake at least pretend that the baptism washed away their sins”. And the other missionaries that were so…”I’m so good and do everything right and judge everyone else for the littlest things” was disgusting. It was pathetic and juvenile and I couldn’t wait to leave. I Thank god I was able to smoke weed while I was on my mission or I woulda lost it lol
Fantastic panel, and Winston was a great addition. I appreciated his question at the end - I didn’t know it was the church blocking apologists from engaging publicly with non-believing scholars like Dan Vogel and Sandra Tanner. I thought it was their own intellectual cowardice, to be honest. :) Good to have that context, and thanks for the great discussion!
@ 1:01:13 Thank you John! Yes! If I had an experience like that I would be shouting it from the rooftops and the precise details of that moment would be forever fixed in my memory.
It’s so wild to see the confirmation bias by the apologists. Thank you for bringing a panel of reputable historians to discuss this! I’m a nevermo but love history. Sandra is one of my new favorite people!
As someone once said, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said." But because the Book of Mormon is a brilliantly made up tale, Joseph got caught up with lying incessantly, trying to pass off the BOM as truth and fact.
I was taking a class at BYU and they were teaching that the translation of the book of mormon was not a direct translation, but instead a type of translation where Joseph Smith was able to include details from his current time so others could understand it better.... Had never heard that before and as a TBM at the time, I was doing some MASSIVE mental gymnastics to try any wrap my head around it. It never made sense and still doesn't. At the time I put it on my shelf as something that i didnt understand yet, but would maybe eventually... I think its safe to say that was one of the first times I was introduced to (or at least recognized) really heavy apologetics, and something about it felt really icky at the time. I assumed I was stupid bc I couldnt understand it. Thank god for the day I realized how fucked over I had been by just believing what any teacher or professor told me as the absolute truth. One of the lovely "fruits" of growing up TBM....
Dan Vogel is a true historian. He looks to LEARN and change according to his learning. That's not only the mark of scholarship but the mark of honesty. This "historian" who is potentially making a six-figure salary from the church shouldn't even be interviewed.
Drat; I would have watched this live if I had known Sandra was going to be on! Loved it. I also loved seeing Winston's perspective; t'was refreshing.❤ Happy holiday season, everyone!
Hi 👋 from non-LDS viewer. As a 4th gen non-religious person, this channel shows why my great great grandparents left their Anglican religion. It’s all mythology. However, LDS is worse than mythical silliness. JS was an obvious fraud and every day LDS insists otherwise LDS risks being outlawed everywhere outside USA.
(1 Cor 2:10-14) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This man seems very well informed and highly intelligent but it grates me the way he keeps saying that the reason some believe and some don’t is initial bias. Many of us have changed our conclusions based on the evidence, despite our bias. We’re not “victims” of Vogel’s or Dehlin’s. It is specifically because we set aside our bias in search for the truth that were able to accept the logical conclusion that the evidence supports. His ad hominem is nauseating
When approaching the historical figure of Joseph Smith from a neutral standpoint, it is entirely possible to conclude through rigorous analysis that he was a fraud. However, historians often challenge such conclusions, arguing that any negative outcome must stem from an inherent bias. This stance implies that the only acceptable conclusion is that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, and any other finding reflects dishonesty in the historical research process. This creates a paradox where objective inquiry is undermined, and researchers are pressured to confirm predetermined beliefs, rather than genuinely explore the evidence at hand. Such a dynamic compromises the integrity of historical scholarship.
Thank you for this episode. I knew about the obvious inconsistencies in the first vision accounts, but I had no idea for example about the chronological inconsistencies (Lucy joining presbyterian church several years after the alleged vision, etc) - so yes, it's been very informative. I also agree that most members start their research from the point of believing it's true and hoping that it ends up being true...
It's also worthy noting that Dr. Harper also admits that contrary to JS's claim, the Mormon Masonic rites isn't ancient. You can read his comments on the Church's site.
All these folks did an exceptional job on this particular video, but I wanted to keep jumping with First Vision info neither Harper nor Vogel know. Their history is dated, still arguing in the Brodie framework. Loved it. Helped my holiday drive from Kansas City to Minneapolis.
In trying to assess "false prophets" and their alleged "sincerity" I believe one must consider their actions carefully rather than simply their words after the fact. In the case of Joseph Smith, it has been such a long time since he lived that we must rely more on historical context and the evidence of the things he did in life rather than his notes, writings, or claims still in circulation. One should also consider the scandalous events surrounding his assassination to gain further and deeper insight. 😊😊😊
I get your point around 3:02:00 about why does God have a body at all if he’s just going to show up in visions instead, but isn’t there a belief in Mormonism that you can’t see God with your physical eyes or else you would die basically? Like you have to be translated in order to see God?
If Joseph Smith's memory on the details of the First Vision couldn't be trusted, why would or should anyone trust that he remembered the details of any so-called "revelation" correctly? It's obvious that the "First Vision" ®was a gimmick to bolster his authority claims and reinforce the idea that he had a special connection to god. It was not unusual for preachers to launch their careers with a claimed Jesus or angelic visitation/vision story (e.g. the story of Charles Finney a preacher who was active in the same area as Joseph Smith and around the same time).
If JS vision changes weren’t reflected by on going changes in the BoM and teachings one could maybe explain the differences. The fact that the concept/doctrine of god went from one being to three is a death blow to first vision.
Harper talks so much about the way memories work and allows for inconsistencies in Joseph’s narratives. Consider that believers in the Bible and New Testament rely on “inspired”writings by people that were not actual witnesses to events. They are seen as reliable because the “spirit” filled in the blanks or provided the insight. Joseph claimed that Zelph was a Lamanite warrior, presumably because he was inspired with that insight. There are many other examples, yet apparently Joseph couldn’t receive inspiration to help him remember how the events of an extremely important experience he supposedly had went down. Hmm!
3:14:49 I like how he says he thinks Joseph told his mom and the goes on to say how people who’s knowledge is their imagination are setting themselves up for disappointment.
Joseph Smith redefining his spiritual experience in different ways throughout his life is a microcosm of religion in general. The interesting part is understanding how different people redefined God and their history in different ways at different points in time.
Was raised very orthodox Mormon served a mission everything else expected. If somebody could respond and tell me where I could find some believing members and maybe their podcast might be fun to listen to to hear how they explain things.
Mormonism with the Murph is a good one. He left the church and came back to church. Murph invites critical scholars like Dan Vogel on his podcast and believing scholars to get multiple sides on issues. Murph is respectful of different views.
Joseph Smith Senior refused to join because a preacher had said his son Alvin had gone to hell. Alvin died in 1823. Richard Bushman on page 570 footnote 30 of Rough Stone Rolling wrote "All the circumstantial evidence not withstanding for an 1820 membership, the date of Lucy Smith's engagement with Presbyterians remains a matter of debate. It is possible that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals 1n 1824.
It's quite obvious that a celestial app has to be downloaded into the head of the visitee. In the case of the the First Vision, Jesus would have opened a celestial zoom connection with Joseph Smith after first using the Holy Ghost installer to install the celestial zoom app in Joseph Smith's head. Of course if someone without the app were standing next to Joseph Smith in the sacred grove, they would not be able to even know that JS was on a celestial zoom call with Heavenly Father and Jesus. This also explains the discrepancies in the accounts because different things were happening during the call. HF was late to log in and was in a different throne room at one point. Then Jesus put HF's window next to his own, so they appeared together.
The comment about Oxford University Press being less reputable than New York University Press is bizarre. Within the field of American religious history, my perception is the reverse. When it comes to religion, NYU Press seems to favor more sociological scholarship, while OUP’s are more traditionally historical.
I'd be interested in hearing more about the comment that your guests made about not trusting non-Mormon or ex-Mormon historians. To my knowledge, there are excellent historians of European descent who study Chinese history, Middle Eastern or African history despite not being of those cultures, and of course vice versa. And what about ancient, medieval or early modern history? None of us currently living are those things, but we study them. Do we have to be something in order to study something? That goes against the idea of being a scholar of history, where one reads primary and secondary sources to gather evidence and explore ideas. It would be interesting to hear a debate about this. It's a position I profoundly disagree with, despite having the utmost respect for your guests.
I don’t like when the apologist said that it would be lazy to not believe the first vision occurred. Caring about facts and history isn’t lazy. But following blindly is lazy.
If the Lord did tell Joseph that all the sects were an “abomination,” the rest of the family surely would have had reservations about joining an institution that was so harshly condemned in a divine visitation. The apparent disregard of these family members for the sentiments of the Lord is heightened by the fact that they remained active in the church until September of 1828 - a full year after Joseph supposedly received the gold plates that would bring the “true” church of God to the world. It is also curious that they remained active in one of the “sects” that, according to Joseph when he dictated his “history” several years later, so viciously “persecuted” him for his telling the story of the first vision. The facts, then, seem to indicate that Joseph did not convey to his family a divinely revealed message that would have inhibited them from joining the Presbyterian Church or from remaining members in it as long as they did.
Fine job Winston, at stepping up and speaking the obvious. Yes, the emperor is naked…. Yes Joe S was a great story teller and if it is his story he can change it! Isn’t it more fun to have the story change depending on how you’re feeling about it?! Of course when the Almighty God of the Universe is part of it … you might want to tell the truth for obvious reasons. Joseph had no respect for God and His power! He couldn’t have witnessed the saving power of a loving, holy God! He would fear God if he knew Him.
I don’t know who the interviewer is, but he seems really uncomfortable and not really interested or engaged- jigging about, tapping, fidgeting with his fingers, checking his watch etc. If the Mormon church want to look like they’re coming from a point of strength, youdve thought they’d have got someone better, or provided training - it’s not like they can’t afford it 😂
I actually thought the guy being interviewed was nervous. His voice was a bit strangled and he kept swallowing like someone who knows they are full of it but will continue trying to convince themselves and others they aren’t.😅
Haven’t watch the entire episode yet but I DID notice in the beginning the interviewer had his arms folded across his chest and from a body language standpoint I found that interesting.🤔
Lets not forget that Joseph said that you have to have the Melchizedek priesthood to see God face to face and live in September 22 and 23, 1832 see D&C 84:21-22 Yet Joseph didn't get the Melchizedek priesthood, until May 15th 1829, nearly 9 years after the first vision. So how was Joseph able to see both God the Father and God the Son back in 1820 before receiving this required priesthood? Wouldn't Peter, James and John have to have given Joseph the Melchizedek priesthood prior to him seeing God, by his own doctrine? Was Joseph just that special and God decided to bend the rules for him and/or it wasn't an actual appearance as Joseph claims it was. ... It is just so hard to keep your facts straight when you are making up a religion!
JS received the high or Melchizedek priesthood at the June 1831 conference through revelation, not angelic ordination. Peter, James, and John were introduced as an addition to the 1835 D&C 27 to explain how the keys of the apostleship were restored. They apparently appeared about July 1830 (D&C 128:20).
Rules of Cults #3: Cult leader gets to live by different rules than everyone else. Joseph gets to see God the father without the M Priesthood, Joseph gets to marry other men's wives when he practices polygamy. etc.
I would say the descriptive words you use that change during multiple telling of an event is reasonable. Especially the more and more you tell the event. That is like a comedian’s set, the main story of it (punchline) doesn’t change, how you describe it with punctuation, mannerism’s etc gets tweaked as you go. However to change major facts of a story, time, place, people. That sounds like you can’t completely remember the first lie you told and also are in a need to continually bolster the effect of the story to keep people interested or cater to particular people. That’s my take on that any ways lol
@@Hallahanifyyes, I think all would agree he was a talented story teller. But so is Stephen king, Tolkien and Dickens….who of which I think tell more in depth stories lol
The issue with Dan approaching the BOM from the standpoint of disbelief and an intent to disprove it is that it mirrors the inherent bias of someone who approaches the BOM with the predetermined belief that it is true and aims to confirm that belief. Both perspectives are academically dishonest because they begin with a preconceived conclusion rather than an open and objective investigation. To maintain academic integrity, one must approach such a subject with a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without allowing personal biases to dictate the outcome. This balanced approach ensures a more credible and rigorous analysis.
I'm pretty sure that Joseph claimed this was all started when he was assaulted by a Dark Force and that he believed he was about to be destroyed. That is something I doubt anyone would forget. But that didn't make it into the Earlier accounts either.
One doesn’t have to prove a negative I.e. “ prove JS didn’t have first vision. “ it’s up to those making a truth claim to prove its true. Not the other way around. Prove to me you don’t beat your wife. You can’t prove negatives. Burden is on them not detractors.
Give me a break. This may seem contradictory but the fact that Joseph was able to borrow, that's putting it niceley, from the King James with all its italics and errors, and seemlessly blend it into the BOM tale, he probably had a near perfect photographic memory or total recall so he could just pull it into the story he wrote.
It seems like Joseph Smith has the same problem with his memory like some of his BOM characters. Like Laman and Lemuel both of whom continue to screw up even after numerous angelic visitations. Perhaps they forgot those visitations? Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to have a problem remembering his visitation with the angel Moroni but has an issue remembering a visitation literally from God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ?
“memories change over time” what a laugh!! I mean Joseph only lived to be 39 so I’m pretty sure he did not have problems with memory unless he had Alzheimer’s. Forty years ago I married my husband and I remember every detail to this very day. I think good old Joe could have gotten his story straight about the Almighty had it really happened.
There is nothing these 2 genius’s will stoop to in order to rationalize and justify. Now if you don’t believe it’s because you are thinking wrong. It never stops
As far as invisibility of the god and Jesus, I was taught that because they are celestial, our eyes would be destroyed if we saw them without being protected by the spirit/power of god, so it is still a spiritual and not physical thing I guess.
Historians have ways of working through accounts. Believing or unbelieving, a scholar or not a scholar, the evidence or not, Joe Smith or not? Oh, the triangulate! The Presbyterismismisiom Wesley Waters? No, not Joe Smith. He is so yesterday.
Dear John, Gerardo & Maven, I'm the one fighting for Joseph Smith! I'm sure you are all aware of the Argument that Joseh SMith NEVER practiced polygamy and it was all Brigham Young! I thought it was a weak conspiracy I heard a long time ago. Now that we have more access to the history and more people digging into it on their own despite all the "professional Historians" ! I'm actually starting to Believe that there is a good chance "Moderate" chance that Joseph Smith didn't start pOlygamy. There are HOLES in the story that I never knew. Its more complicated than I thought. ((nd you need to Know to it's splitting the church right now. )) More Mormons are LOVING the idea that Joe never practiced it and Now he is a SAINT/HERO again!!! THen you get into Brigham Young and he was horrible we all know that. then the question is was Brigham Yong really the next one to be Prophet. ( please go down that rabit hole.. Sydney Rgdon and Joes' 11 yr old son the 3rd ) either way, Brigham did a Hostel Take over when Joseph Died!!! Joseph SMith never gave Brigham the "Full Keys" as a prophet. And if he started polygamy he wasn't a righteous man and not inspired and NOT the next Prophet and the current leaders are in BIG TROUBLE!!!! (its the Cover -UP within a Cover-up) this would be a great story on your show!!! (lets ROCK this Church Flip it upside down)
We have the following TH-cam "Mormon ACTIVIST" channels: 1. Mormon Stories Podcast: = excommunicated 2. Mormon Rescue = excommunicated 3. NEOMO the Mormon = excommunicated 4. Dr. July Hanks = pending.. doesn't look good 5. Still Mormon = Open 6. 132 problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy : + under investigation 7. Cultural Hall: Cultch he is hanging in there, by the rim! 8. Mormonish Podcast: (Rebecca Bibliotheca) she is a Christmas "MilFus"
@99blackbirds Are you saying the church is lying? They admit Joseph practiced polygamy in church approved sources. Just read their gospel topic essays!
See TH-camrs: 1. Mormon Rescue 2. Still Mormon 3. 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy 4. Rob Fotheringham 5. Cultural Hall (bad ASS) 6. Nemo the Mormon (excommunicated)
(1 Cor 2:10-14) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So many theories of the apologists insult my intelligence. I'm sorry but if someone can't accurately remember if it was an angel that visited them or God then there's no way I'm gonna trust that person's story.
So, Sandra believes in a jesus? If so, what's her religion? How about the others? Is she an ex mormon like it seems the rest are? Why do I always assume that a ex mormon doesn't believe in any god/religion once they've figured out the mormon church is bunk? Debunking a religion/mormons and debunking god doesn't seem like a big step...
Fascinating to see people who make their living talking about anything potentially negative they can dig up about a religion they don't agree with. It's sad they don't have something more positive and meaningful to devote their lives to. But evidently it's a good way to make money.
As a never-mo who's followed Mormon Stories for years, I've adopted Sandra as my grandma, and this podcast is like a meeting at her house. With tea, coffee for the rebels, and cookies.
That's such a great description. 😂
Love it!!
I adore her
She is a treasure
Sandra Tanner, my BFF and she doesn't even know me. I read NMKMH in 1993. Thanks Gerardo for bringing her on. Merry Christmas one and all from South Africa 🇿🇦🎄🎉💃
I LOVE when Sandra is on.. she is so easy to listen to.. and her explanations are so clear. I'm excited to listen
Love Sandra. She's a treasure. And Dan Vogel does is fantastic with the historical record. Thank you. I really enjoy some of the episodes with experts talking about truth claims.
The moment I heard Sandra Tanner’s voice I lost it. She’s amazing.
Anytime Sandra is on, it's a huge WIN! This whole panel made for a very interesting, informative episode. I hope there will be more like it!
I like to bear my testimony and I know this church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet....Among my earliest memories as a child staring over a podium standing on a stool, saying this to 150+ congregation on many occasions. It really bothers me that I had no idea of this man and wired my brain at such a young age to "just believe". Kudos to the incredible panel and to the amazing Gerardo for producing this episode. This was a Christmas treat listening while cooking this morning. Every episode I claim a little more of myself back. Thank you for the great episode.
I was raised Mormon and went on a mission but I wasn’t fully convinced before I left for my mission(the temple did not help) and during my mission to Salt Lake City of all places I got to see behind the curtain(I’ve been in the holy of Holies in the salt lake temple) and learned it’s just about money at this point. When we’d baptize people the church only cared if they were paying tithing as soon as they converted and that they weren’t real converts if they weren’t paying tithing. It blew my mind that we didn’t really care about people’s salvation. I was like “even if this is fake at least pretend that the baptism washed away their sins”.
And the other missionaries that were so…”I’m so good and do everything right and judge everyone else for the littlest things” was disgusting. It was pathetic and juvenile and I couldn’t wait to leave. I Thank god I was able to smoke weed while I was on my mission or I woulda lost it lol
👍❤️❤️❤️
Wow really?? You smoked weed on your mission? That’s hilarious! Tell us how you did it!
Sandra is the ultimate❤️ love it whenever she is a guest😊
Love this panel! Great to get to meet Winston! He must have amazing parents! 😀
Fantastic panel, and Winston was a great addition. I appreciated his question at the end - I didn’t know it was the church blocking apologists from engaging publicly with non-believing scholars like Dan Vogel and Sandra Tanner. I thought it was their own intellectual cowardice, to be honest. :) Good to have that context, and thanks for the great discussion!
It's a temple recommend question also.
I love Sandra!! I've learned so much from her.
I LOOOVE Mormon stories so much. I'm so enjoying listening to this episode. Thank you.
I LOVED this…the whole panel…such an amazing episode! More videos like this!!
@ 1:01:13
Thank you John! Yes! If I had an experience like that I would be shouting it from the rooftops and the precise details of that moment would be forever fixed in my memory.
U think you would do that , but u actually dont knows, unless it happened to you. Then you would know.
It’s so wild to see the confirmation bias by the apologists. Thank you for bringing a panel of reputable historians to discuss this! I’m a nevermo but love history. Sandra is one of my new favorite people!
As someone once said, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said." But because the Book of Mormon is a brilliantly made up tale, Joseph got caught up with lying incessantly, trying to pass off the BOM as truth and fact.
Brilliant? Long stretch nothing briliant
Thanks!
I was taking a class at BYU and they were teaching that the translation of the book of mormon was not a direct translation, but instead a type of translation where Joseph Smith was able to include details from his current time so others could understand it better.... Had never heard that before and as a TBM at the time, I was doing some MASSIVE mental gymnastics to try any wrap my head around it. It never made sense and still doesn't. At the time I put it on my shelf as something that i didnt understand yet, but would maybe eventually... I think its safe to say that was one of the first times I was introduced to (or at least recognized) really heavy apologetics, and something about it felt really icky at the time. I assumed I was stupid bc I couldnt understand it. Thank god for the day I realized how fucked over I had been by just believing what any teacher or professor told me as the absolute truth. One of the lovely "fruits" of growing up TBM....
Dan Vogel is a true historian. He looks to LEARN and change according to his learning. That's not only the mark of scholarship but the mark of honesty.
This "historian" who is potentially making a six-figure salary from the church shouldn't even be interviewed.
More cowbell … and more Sandra Tanner! ❤️
Lol
amazing panel and podcast, always on point john!
Wow,Mr Vogel is beutiful inside and out, brain, soul, surface.
Great show. I LOVE me some Sandra and Dan
They wouldn't have to give explanations of questionable differences if this religion wasn't built on deception and lies.
Drat; I would have watched this live if I had known Sandra was going to be on! Loved it. I also loved seeing Winston's perspective; t'was refreshing.❤ Happy holiday season, everyone!
Hi 👋 from non-LDS viewer. As a 4th gen non-religious person, this channel shows why my great great grandparents left their Anglican religion. It’s all mythology.
However, LDS is worse than mythical silliness. JS was an obvious fraud and every day LDS insists otherwise LDS risks being outlawed everywhere outside USA.
So god isn’t a god of “truth” he is a god is “feelings”. Religion requires faith, but it shouldn’t require the ignoring of verifiable facts.
I thought checking your brain at the door was a requirement for religion.
(1 Cor 2:10-14) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
@markhigbee my point exactly. All feelings.
Wishing you all a very happy Christmas 🎄 xx
Truely love you all
This man seems very well informed and highly intelligent but it grates me the way he keeps saying that the reason some believe and some don’t is initial bias. Many of us have changed our conclusions based on the evidence, despite our bias. We’re not “victims” of Vogel’s or Dehlin’s. It is specifically because we set aside our bias in search for the truth that were able to accept the logical conclusion that the evidence supports. His ad hominem is nauseating
What a team! !
When approaching the historical figure of Joseph Smith from a neutral standpoint, it is entirely possible to conclude through rigorous analysis that he was a fraud. However, historians often challenge such conclusions, arguing that any negative outcome must stem from an inherent bias. This stance implies that the only acceptable conclusion is that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, and any other finding reflects dishonesty in the historical research process. This creates a paradox where objective inquiry is undermined, and researchers are pressured to confirm predetermined beliefs, rather than genuinely explore the evidence at hand. Such a dynamic compromises the integrity of historical scholarship.
Thank you for this episode. I knew about the obvious inconsistencies in the first vision accounts, but I had no idea for example about the chronological inconsistencies (Lucy joining presbyterian church several years after the alleged vision, etc) - so yes, it's been very informative. I also agree that most members start their research from the point of believing it's true and hoping that it ends up being true...
Great show! I'm learning so much. I like when Sandra used the example of meeting the VP. Your son was funny when he mentioned we should triangulate.
Amazing video!!
It's also worthy noting that Dr. Harper also admits that contrary to JS's claim, the Mormon Masonic rites isn't ancient. You can read his comments on the Church's site.
True
Do you have a link?
@@IdahoTruthSeeker TH-cam will block my comment if it has a link, but just go to website and type Masonry.
All these folks did an exceptional job on this particular video, but I wanted to keep jumping with First Vision info neither Harper nor Vogel know. Their history is dated, still arguing in the Brodie framework. Loved it. Helped my holiday drive from Kansas City to Minneapolis.
I have the original book on at ebay. Love the book but times are hard. Magnificent book.
In trying to assess "false prophets" and their alleged "sincerity" I believe one must consider their actions carefully rather than simply their words after the fact. In the case of Joseph Smith, it has been such a long time since he lived that we must rely more on historical context and the evidence of the things he did in life rather than his notes, writings, or claims still in circulation. One should also consider the scandalous events surrounding his assassination to gain further and deeper insight. 😊😊😊
Nope.
14:15 saying the quiet part out loud. The difference is starting from a conclusion to accept the dogma, or to follow where the data lead.
I get your point around 3:02:00 about why does God have a body at all if he’s just going to show up in visions instead, but isn’t there a belief in Mormonism that you can’t see God with your physical eyes or else you would die basically? Like you have to be translated in order to see God?
Love this series!
If Joseph Smith's memory on the details of the First Vision couldn't be trusted, why would or should anyone trust that he remembered the details of any so-called "revelation" correctly? It's obvious that the "First Vision" ®was a gimmick to bolster his authority claims and reinforce the idea that he had a special connection to god. It was not unusual for preachers to launch their careers with a claimed Jesus or angelic visitation/vision story (e.g. the story of Charles Finney a preacher who was active in the same area as Joseph Smith and around the same time).
If JS vision changes weren’t reflected by on going changes in the BoM and teachings one could maybe explain the differences. The fact that the concept/doctrine of god went from one being to three is a death blow to first vision.
Harper talks so much about the way memories work and allows for inconsistencies in Joseph’s narratives.
Consider that believers in the Bible and New Testament rely on “inspired”writings by people that were not actual witnesses to events. They are seen as reliable because the “spirit” filled in the blanks or provided the insight. Joseph claimed that Zelph was a Lamanite warrior, presumably because he was inspired with that insight. There are many other examples, yet apparently Joseph couldn’t receive inspiration to help him remember how the events of an extremely important experience he supposedly had went down. Hmm!
I loved this!
3:14:49
I like how he says he thinks Joseph told his mom and the goes on to say how people who’s knowledge is their imagination are setting themselves up for disappointment.
Joseph Smith redefining his spiritual experience in different ways throughout his life is a microcosm of religion in general.
The interesting part is understanding how different people redefined God and their history in different ways at different points in time.
Please make a short out of the discussion starting at 31:25!
Has anyone considered 'Stockholm Syndrome' as a factor?
Was raised very orthodox Mormon served a mission everything else expected. If somebody could respond and tell me where I could find some believing members and maybe their podcast might be fun to listen to to hear how they explain things.
Mormonism with the Murph is a good one. He left the church and came back to church. Murph invites critical scholars like Dan Vogel on his podcast and believing scholars to get multiple sides on issues.
Murph is respectful of different views.
I can hardly listen to the apologetic parts with the two dudes
Agreed
Joseph Smith Senior refused to join because a preacher had said his son Alvin had gone to hell. Alvin died in 1823. Richard Bushman on page 570 footnote 30 of Rough Stone Rolling wrote "All the circumstantial evidence not withstanding for an 1820 membership, the date of Lucy Smith's engagement with Presbyterians remains a matter of debate. It is possible that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals 1n 1824.
Unfortunately, Steven Harper thinks that bearing testimony trumps all, alas it does not.
It's quite obvious that a celestial app has to be downloaded into the head of the visitee. In the case of the the First Vision, Jesus would have opened a celestial zoom connection with Joseph Smith after first using the Holy Ghost installer to install the celestial zoom app in Joseph Smith's head. Of course if someone without the app were standing next to Joseph Smith in the sacred grove, they would not be able to even know that JS was on a celestial zoom call with Heavenly Father and Jesus. This also explains the discrepancies in the accounts because different things were happening during the call. HF was late to log in and was in a different throne room at one point. Then Jesus put HF's window next to his own, so they appeared together.
The comment about Oxford University Press being less reputable than New York University Press is bizarre. Within the field of American religious history, my perception is the reverse. When it comes to religion, NYU Press seems to favor more sociological scholarship, while OUP’s are more traditionally historical.
Looking good John!
I'd be interested in hearing more about the comment that your guests made about not trusting non-Mormon or ex-Mormon historians. To my knowledge, there are excellent historians of European descent who study Chinese history, Middle Eastern or African history despite not being of those cultures, and of course vice versa. And what about ancient, medieval or early modern history? None of us currently living are those things, but we study them. Do we have to be something in order to study something? That goes against the idea of being a scholar of history, where one reads primary and secondary sources to gather evidence and explore ideas. It would be interesting to hear a debate about this. It's a position I profoundly disagree with, despite having the utmost respect for your guests.
Not Joseph pulling a Kanye... "Hang on, Jesus, I'mma let you finish, but first I have a question for you..." 🤣
Publishers will put out just about any book if they think it will make them money.
His story also evolves as he copies” different testimonial account circling at the time
I don’t like when the apologist said that it would be lazy to not believe the first vision occurred. Caring about facts and history isn’t lazy. But following blindly is lazy.
If the Lord did tell Joseph that all the sects were an “abomination,” the rest of the family surely would have had reservations about joining an institution that was so harshly condemned in a divine visitation. The apparent disregard of these family members for the sentiments of the Lord is heightened by the fact that they remained active in the church until September of 1828 - a full year after Joseph supposedly received the gold plates that would bring the “true” church of God to the world. It is also curious that they remained active in one of the “sects” that, according to Joseph when he dictated his “history” several years later, so viciously “persecuted” him for his telling the story of the first vision. The facts, then, seem to indicate that Joseph did not convey to his family a divinely revealed message that would have inhibited them from joining the Presbyterian Church or from remaining members in it as long as they did.
Fine job Winston, at stepping up and speaking the obvious. Yes, the emperor is naked…. Yes Joe S was a great story teller and if it is his story he can change it! Isn’t it more fun to have the story change depending on how you’re feeling about it?! Of course when the Almighty God of the Universe is part of it … you might want to tell the truth for obvious reasons. Joseph had no respect for God and His power! He couldn’t have witnessed the saving power of a loving, holy God! He would fear God if he knew Him.
Also sorry for being so sarcastic in the live chat
I don’t know who the interviewer is, but he seems really uncomfortable and not really interested or engaged- jigging about, tapping, fidgeting with his fingers, checking his watch etc. If the Mormon church want to look like they’re coming from a point of strength, youdve thought they’d have got someone better, or provided training - it’s not like they can’t afford it 😂
I actually thought the guy being interviewed was nervous. His voice was a bit strangled and he kept swallowing like someone who knows they are full of it but will continue trying to convince themselves and others they aren’t.😅
Haven’t watch the entire episode yet but I DID notice in the beginning the interviewer had his arms folded across his chest and from a body language standpoint I found that interesting.🤔
As a nevermo, I find it surprising that Smith's angel was called 'idiot' (moron + i). I had always thought angelic names ended in 'el' (of God).
Lets not forget that Joseph said that you have to have the Melchizedek priesthood to see God face to face and live in September 22 and 23, 1832 see D&C 84:21-22
Yet Joseph didn't get the Melchizedek priesthood, until May 15th 1829, nearly 9 years after the first vision. So how was Joseph able to see both God the Father and God the Son back in 1820 before receiving this required priesthood? Wouldn't Peter, James and John have to have given Joseph the Melchizedek priesthood prior to him seeing God, by his own doctrine? Was Joseph just that special and God decided to bend the rules for him and/or it wasn't an actual appearance as Joseph claims it was.
... It is just so hard to keep your facts straight when you are making up a religion!
Except he didn’t get the M priesthood in 1829 either @drakelazerus. Just ask David Whitmer. That was made up later too and inserted back into history.
JS received the high or Melchizedek priesthood at the June 1831 conference through revelation, not angelic ordination. Peter, James, and John were introduced as an addition to the 1835 D&C 27 to explain how the keys of the apostleship were restored. They apparently appeared about July 1830 (D&C 128:20).
@@danvogel6802 Thanks for clarifying and sharing. I appreicate your research.
@@mormonstories Really enjoyed this episode! Thanks
Rules of Cults #3: Cult leader gets to live by different rules than everyone else. Joseph gets to see God the father without the M Priesthood, Joseph gets to marry other men's wives when he practices polygamy. etc.
I would say the descriptive words you use that change during multiple telling of an event is reasonable. Especially the more and more you tell the event. That is like a comedian’s set, the main story of it (punchline) doesn’t change, how you describe it with punctuation, mannerism’s etc gets tweaked as you go. However to change major facts of a story, time, place, people. That sounds like you can’t completely remember the first lie you told and also are in a need to continually bolster the effect of the story to keep people interested or cater to particular people. That’s my take on that any ways lol
He had to change it to fit the narrative he wanted at the time or to give himself authority he wanted at certain times.
@@Hallahanifyyes, I think all would agree he was a talented story teller. But so is Stephen king, Tolkien and Dickens….who of which I think tell more in depth stories lol
Sandra and Vogel, certainly state treasures, perhaps national treasures also. Killer four hours.
If you increase the size of the letter it is easier to read.
The issue with Dan approaching the BOM from the standpoint of disbelief and an intent to disprove it is that it mirrors the inherent bias of someone who approaches the BOM with the predetermined belief that it is true and aims to confirm that belief. Both perspectives are academically dishonest because they begin with a preconceived conclusion rather than an open and objective investigation. To maintain academic integrity, one must approach such a subject with a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without allowing personal biases to dictate the outcome. This balanced approach ensures a more credible and rigorous analysis.
I'm pretty sure that Joseph claimed this was all started when he was assaulted by a Dark Force and that he believed he was about to be destroyed.
That is something I doubt anyone would forget.
But that didn't make it into the Earlier accounts either.
One doesn’t have to prove a negative I.e. “ prove JS didn’t have first vision. “ it’s up to those making a truth claim to prove its true. Not the other way around. Prove to me you don’t beat your wife. You can’t prove negatives. Burden is on them not detractors.
Give me a break. This may seem contradictory but the fact that Joseph was able to borrow, that's putting it niceley, from the King James with all its italics and errors, and seemlessly blend it into the BOM tale, he probably had a near perfect photographic memory or total recall so he could just pull it into the story he wrote.
Nope. Can you provide a reference to anyone on earth that could memorize so much ...pages and pages?
It seems like Joseph Smith has the same problem with his memory like some of his BOM characters. Like Laman and Lemuel both of whom continue to screw up even after numerous angelic visitations. Perhaps they forgot those visitations? Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to have a problem remembering his visitation with the angel Moroni but has an issue remembering a visitation literally from God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ?
23:05 those are essentially the same thing.
“memories change over time” what a laugh!! I mean Joseph only lived to be 39 so I’m pretty sure he did not have problems with memory unless he had Alzheimer’s. Forty years ago I married my husband and I remember every detail to this very day. I think good old Joe could have gotten his story straight about the Almighty had it really happened.
There is nothing these 2 genius’s will stoop to in order to rationalize and justify. Now if you don’t believe it’s because you are thinking wrong. It never stops
As far as invisibility of the god and Jesus, I was taught that because they are celestial, our eyes would be destroyed if we saw them without being protected by the spirit/power of god, so it is still a spiritual and not physical thing I guess.
Winston is perfect
Historians have ways of working through accounts. Believing or unbelieving, a scholar or not a scholar, the evidence or not, Joe Smith or not? Oh, the triangulate! The Presbyterismismisiom Wesley Waters? No, not Joe Smith. He is so yesterday.
Dear John, Gerardo & Maven, I'm the one fighting for Joseph Smith! I'm sure you are all aware of the Argument that Joseh SMith NEVER practiced polygamy and it was all Brigham Young! I thought it was a weak conspiracy I heard a long time ago. Now that we have more access to the history and more people digging into it on their own despite all the "professional Historians" ! I'm actually starting to Believe that there is a good chance "Moderate" chance that Joseph Smith didn't start pOlygamy. There are HOLES in the story that I never knew. Its more complicated than I thought. ((nd you need to Know to it's splitting the church right now. )) More Mormons are LOVING the idea that Joe never practiced it and Now he is a SAINT/HERO again!!! THen you get into Brigham Young and he was horrible we all know that. then the question is was Brigham Yong really the next one to be Prophet. ( please go down that rabit hole.. Sydney Rgdon and Joes' 11 yr old son the 3rd ) either way, Brigham did a Hostel Take over when Joseph Died!!! Joseph SMith never gave Brigham the "Full Keys" as a prophet. And if he started polygamy he wasn't a righteous man and not inspired and NOT the next Prophet and the current leaders are in BIG TROUBLE!!!! (its the Cover -UP within a Cover-up) this would be a great story on your show!!! (lets ROCK this Church Flip it upside down)
We have the following TH-cam "Mormon ACTIVIST" channels:
1. Mormon Stories Podcast: = excommunicated
2. Mormon Rescue = excommunicated
3. NEOMO the Mormon = excommunicated
4. Dr. July Hanks = pending.. doesn't look good
5. Still Mormon = Open
6. 132 problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy : + under investigation
7. Cultural Hall: Cultch he is hanging in there, by the rim!
8. Mormonish Podcast: (Rebecca Bibliotheca) she is a Christmas "MilFus"
@99blackbirds Are you saying the church is lying? They admit Joseph practiced polygamy in church approved sources. Just read their gospel topic essays!
😅😅😅
See TH-camrs:
1. Mormon Rescue
2. Still Mormon
3. 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy
4. Rob Fotheringham
5. Cultural Hall (bad ASS)
6. Nemo the Mormon (excommunicated)
This is not the church’s stance.
Out of the mouths of Babes,there is Joseph, with a quick question. 😆
A letter takes down small religion lol
I like how he says historians or lawyers. Most would say scholars and lawyers.
Talk about a group of people that denied the Spirit!!! John Delin has become the very thing he supposedly despises.
(1 Cor 2:10-14) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Very poignant and true. Especially applies to this episode.
🙏💜
So many theories of the apologists insult my intelligence. I'm sorry but if someone can't accurately remember if it was an angel that visited them or God then there's no way I'm gonna trust that person's story.
So, Sandra believes in a jesus? If so, what's her religion? How about the others? Is she an ex mormon like it seems the rest are? Why do I always assume that a ex mormon doesn't believe in any god/religion once they've figured out the mormon church is bunk? Debunking a religion/mormons and debunking god doesn't seem like a big step...
Simple
W/ Dr. Steven Harper?? Why the clickbait dishonesty?
Why don’t you get it from the horse’s mouth and have Steve Harper in on this conversation? Rather than picking his quotes out of context?
Ugh, can't do 4 hours. Just cant do it
I mean you don't have to watch do you
Not everyone wants to go deep. But for many it’s important.
I love it!
I look forward to getting back to it if I haven’t the time for the whole thing at once.
@@strangeclouds7heard of segments? Break it up in 30 minute segments
Fascinating to see people who make their living talking about anything potentially negative they can dig up about a religion they don't agree with. It's sad they don't have something more positive and meaningful to devote their lives to. But evidently it's a good way to make money.