Kolby and RFM, thank you for the logical, evidence based breakdown of the Light on Truth Letter. You both are giants amongst us mere mortals. Keep up the great work, and thank you for these great episodes!
And speaking of repetitions: "Whenever [Joseph Smith] found his speech growing too modern-which was about every sentence or two-he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet." -- Mark Twain
1:39:00 Thank you for making this point. I've been doing a response series to the LDS Truth Claims lecture series, and this is one of the points that the apologist in that series tries to get away with. I've been arguing that this is fallacious reasoning, and y'all just drove that point home in a masterful way!
I have always loved those able to masterfully deconstruct apologetics. You guys are among the best. I have a particular respect for exmos who then go on to apply that same skepticism to other faith claims as well.
Austin's failure to "develop a working naturalistic theory explaining the Book of Mormon that made sense" is nothing more than Austin's own faith-motivated failure to recognize that reasonable "working" naturalistic theories do exist. Despite his half-clever attempt to use his personal lack of objectivity as a device to shift the burden of proof, many reasonable people have had no problem at all in developing highly plausible naturalistic theories explaining the Book of Mormon that do make sense and...at a minimum...are much more sensible and plausible than Austin's own "working" supernatural theory...a theory that requires belief in magic translation crystals or stones, a teleporting angel and an ancient artifact (a set of gold plates) that magically disappears when the teleporting angel hauls them up to heaven.
Can you name one reasonable "working" naturalistic theory that does exist, that actually does work? Remember a 21 year-old kid dictated this out of his mouth Over a relatively short time.
Can u name one reasonable "working" naturalistic theory that actually exists? And you did say the correct word :"theory". After all these years, there are just theories, which have been talked about thoroughly. There's a reason why they're still just theories… Because nothing conclusive has been brought forth.
@@truthseeker4286can you do that for the Koran or other holy books? Because if not you’re just engaged in special pleading. Critics may never definitively explain where every line of the Book of Mormon comes from-but that doesn’t somehow make it “true.”
@@truthseeker4286 "Remember a 21 year-old kid dictated this out of his mouth Over a relatively short time." Suuure. That's what happened...according to....? I've seen you constantly on post-Mormon video comment sections spamming out what you (apparently) think are faith-promoting zingers of truthiness or whatever. As in this case, your keyboard efforts are fatally undermined by your lack of mental effort...as in you don't even "get an 'A' for effort'. Even according to the Church's officially approved narrative, the Book of Mormon was not produced by a "21 year-old kid" who "dictated this out of his mouth over a relatively short time." According to the official history, didn't he start talking about the angel and the sacred plates in 1823, with the "translation" work being completed in 1829? Did he, through some kind of gift and power of god, become a "21 year-old kid" in 1823 and remain so until 1829? Or did he continue to be a 21 year-old kid until the book was actually published in 1830? We're talking about plausibility, "truthseeker". Not religiously themed fractured fairy tales.
What an interesting, enjoyable and entertaining discussion 👏 great work, thank you and improving yet more my preparation for a potential encounter with mormon missionaries in Edinburgh. Thanks guys ❤
At the root of the apologists' arguments is the shifting of the burden of proof to the critics. The Lincoln cell phone analogy illustrates that point. Understanding the basic idea that the affirmative (NOT the negative) has the burden of proof is key to seeing through the bs.
A point about using other sources to write the Book of Memory. In an era 1) that encouraged memorization, and 2) where people had few things to read and thus read them again and again, Smith may well have committed major portions of the KJV and other sources to memory.
If you want to play with the BIG BOYS in Mormon apologetics- you have to TAKE the criticism along with the praise. The man who wrote this letter doesn’t seem to understand that simple fact. Here’s how my mother would have said it, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”
Regarding complex works written in short periods, I offer these 10 Bestselling Books Written in Less Than 2 Months 1. Casino Royale by Ian Fleming: 2 months 2. As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner: 6 weeks 3. King Solomon’s Mines by H. Rider Haggard: 6 weeks 4. A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens: 6 weeks 5. On the Road by Jack Kerouac: 3 weeks 6. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess: 3 weeks 7. The Maigret series by Georges Simenon: 11 days 8. Rasselas by Samuel Johnson: 1 week 9. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson: 3 days 10. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne: 2.5 days And here's one more for the list... "Hubbard wrote Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health at that time, allegedly completing the 180,000-word book in six weeks." (Wikipedia, "History of Dianetics")
Also, the books you listed are actually GOOD. The Book of Mormon is badly written and hard to follow. It seems that this for Mormons constitutes "complexity" and that this is a virtue.
@@monkpato that's your comeback? They're not complex enough? Seriously? (did someone say "Goal Post Move"?) The fact of the matter remains: A complete, fully formed novel - even of some great length - CAN be written from scratch well within the timeframe that Mormon Apologists tout as being a miracle for The Book of Mormon, can't it? Furthermore, if you REALLY want to argue that The Book of Mormon gets a Special Pleading because it's "complex", I would argue that it's convoluted, not complex. And convolution in writing ain't no miracle, it's what happens when you're in a hurry and rushing the product out.
B. H. Roberts said in his writings that there were so many areas the BoM sounded like The View of Hebrews that it was impossible to state JS did not use it a basis for his story.
1/ have you read all of View of the Hebrews? If not, your claim is made in ignorance and confirmation bias. 2/ If you made this claim mainly on snippets from the CES letter, then u confirm the above.
@ I purchased, read and studied that and “Mormonism unveiled “. This two books and “Studies of the BOM” gave me all the information I need to quit the church after 64 years of devotion.
@@truthseeker4286 In the initial post there was no mention of the CES letter but rather the fact that influential LDS Seventy BH Roberts was disturbed by all the parallels between the two books. Have you read VOH? I haven't, but I have read Roberts list of similarities. How do you explain them away? Or was BH lying?
If the daguerreotype of Lincoln holding a cell phone (in the discussion starting at 20:47 ) had some faith-promoting relevance to the Book of Mormon, my guess is that apologists would insist that it is a genuine daguerreotype image (made in 1862 or whatever year it's captioned with) in a manner similar to the way they deal with the existence of the "NHM" letters (actually only rough equivalents to those letters in the Hebrew alphabet) appearing at a location that lines up with a path taken by Lehi, said route only being based on guesses made by apologists...based on a very ambiguous, detail-poor description of the journey provided in the BoM. (More plausible explanations would be rejected out of hand.) IOW, the apologists would create a series of hypothetical connections which are each just assumed to be true, then reach the conclusion that those "connections" prove that the daguerreotype is true, without ever acknowledging the tenuously hypothetical nature of the assumptions. "Look! The phone that Lincoln is holding is clearly an A p p l e cell phone. Look! There is an article from an 1862 newspaper mentioning a visit that Lincoln made to an apple orchard in Maryland that expressly described Lincoln as holding an apple in his right hand. In the daguerreotype, Lincoln is holding an apple in his right hand. This proves that the daguerreotype is a genuine image of Lincoln holding a cell phone in 1862. Anti-Mormons have never been able to prove conclusively that the newspaper article was referring to an apple that was just an edible fruit."
RFM: a minor point: I think that Hoffman was done in when Throckmorton discovered that Hoffman must have hung up his forgeries to dry, and under high magnification Throckmorton could see the ink running slightly downward. Actually Hoffman replicated ink from the period so that detail was correct. Several documents had this anomaly, so apparently Hoffman was hung out to dry because he hung his works up to dry (pardon the pun).
Now that I've watched this entire thing, I think this episode is crucial to understanding the talents and abilities of Joseph Smith. You guys did a great job showing that he absolutely had the ability to dictate and produce exactly what he dictated and produced and anyone who wants to deny that is just ignoring the evidence staring right at them and engaged in wishful thinking. Hands down the Book of Mormon is the production and brain child of Joseph Smith.
Where is your evidence that any on earth Could dictate something like the book of Mormon? A 23-year-old kid. Where is your evidence, where is even one person on earth that could dictate something whatJoseph Smith did. How about you ? Could u dictate even one coherent page. Go ahead and try it right now for all to see.
Not at all. Unless one goes to leaps and bounds and mental gymnastics to suggest that he simply dictated this out of his mind in a relatively short time. It's funny how Joseph Smith is now portrayed as a supremely abled savant. And not the ignorant and stupid individual that critics initially claim for decades. Name one person on earth past present that Has dictated such a volume. I suggest you go look at the original transcripts of the book of Mormon... The paper that the scribes wrote on as Joseph dictated. Have you? It is one continuous flow. Go ahead try doing even two pages right now without looking at a computer or an iPhone. Turn your lights off and do it under candlelight. Oh, but you need time to memorize a bunch of pages. OK, take a week and memorize a bunch pages and then dictate it. And remember, no Oopsies, no redos
@@truthseeker4286 I come up with mock kjv stuff all the time. It's a lot easier than you think. Also I've read enough of the book if mormon and doctrine and covenants to be able to adopt that style. Chris Nemelka has done it with his book of Lehi. If you saturate yourself with that lingo it's possible to adopt it as your own. Although I'm sure there is nothing I can say to convince you.
@@truthseeker4286 you want to talk about mental gymnastics? How do you rationalize the 42-60 year old men marying the 15 year old girls? In what world is that ok?
@@truthseeker4286we don’t have a complete original manuscript of the Book of Mormon-so what were you looking at? We have what amounts to only 28% of the original manuscript.
A high-school education really only became common for ordinary Americans starting in the 1900s. Prior to that, an 8th-grade education was typical at best.
I'm only about thirty minutes in, but I have to say, Austin, have you ever met a four year old before? They cannot read or write, but man, they can tell stories all day. So even if the theory that Joseph Smith was uneducated and couldn't read or write, he could still communicate and make up stories that compiles the book of mormon. I'm fairly certain that if I documented everything and the stories my four-year-old said I could put together a book too and call it scripture
Interesting that Welch pointed out the parallels to Zosimus since he originated the idea of Chiasmus. Both ideas suffer from the same problem: depending upon the selection of words or concepts one can create a Chiasmus out of just about any writing. Similarly, depending on the scope of the parallel you can draw parallels between just about any two books: just draw the parallel "wide" enough. This is also similar to the idea of proving the Book of Mormon by listing the things the BOM lists that were unknown in 1820 but are known today: the basic problem being that the writer can "control" the results by choosing the categories. For example, the BOM says there were "highways." Sure enough, "highways" have been discovered in Meso-America. But the Roman Empire was chockfull of "highways" too. So what does it prove? Nothing, because the parallel is way too wide. If we found a street sign in Meso-America that said "Lehi Way," well that would be a real parallel. Unfortunately, no parallel anywhere near this specificity has been found, and that's a real problem for the BOM. Also, if you are going to try to tie Meso-America to the BOM, consider what is NOT mentioned in the BOM: jaguars, chocolate, squash, potatoes, etc., etc. That is, lots of things that are ubiquitous in that region, but without a mention in the BOM. Corn for example, has a passing mention in the BOM, but the entire Meso-American region seems to be completely dominated by Corn. Likewise, Wheat & Barley are mentioned in the BOM, but seem to have a very slight (if any) connection to the BOM.
Why didn't they send the eagles? Because the Nazgul and/or Sauron would have seen them approaching. They (Frodo, Sam, and Golum) pointedly though journeyed through the Dead Marshes and then used the pass of Cirith Ungol to access Mordor precisely because that was the only blind spot in the security curtain they could slip through (and that's in the books and movies).
The other thing to remember is JS didn’t produce the Book of Mormon we have today he produced the 1st edition - and when you read that edition it stands out like a sore thumb where it’s horrible English and then flowing into wonderful KJV language where it’s easy to see oh here’s where he’s plagiarized from the Bible and then bam we’re back to awkward language again
Regarding your comment about Joseph saying "it's not for the world to know" about the BOM, another reason why he might not have studied it much is because it came from his mind, so why would he feel the need to study something that he produced? And then without studying it regularly, he's naturally not going to verbatim quote from it often.
Thank you Mr and Mr. I find me a little confused with the reaction from true belivers (from any religion) and specila from mormons calling thouse leaving as lazy. I do undnerstand there exits serious scholars but, I find it disterbing that so many pull a trumph card called ”Faith” and that indication to me that they are lasy for not find real evidence. Its sad that smart people like you have to be part of this absurde sitution. Understand its necisairy for helping people. And to be honest… I love how your brains works. THANK YOU !🍾💃
The divine origin theory is analogous to the claim that a UFO comes from aliens in outer space. Even if I can't prove the source of the object, I don't just assume that the only explanation is aliens. I don't need a counter theory to debunk a theory.
Is it more likely that Nephi and the other book of Mormon authors just happened to write with a similar style/grammar as the authors of the late war and view of the Hebrews or Joseph smith? Austin also has errors on his book of Enoch and book of Moses correlations where he references mahujah. He says mahujah shows up in the book of giants. It doesn't. It's mahawai or mahaway. Yes, it's still similar but his letter shows an exact match with the book of Moses which isn't the case. Colby Townsend has an excellent rebuttal on the similarities.
We told people all the time they didn’t need to read the whole BOM to know it was true so to critique the fact that you broke down a chapter without reading the whole book is pretty hilarious
I just listened to Austin on "mormonism with the Murph". There is nothing new to see here. Just more of the same b.s. apologetics. "B.o.m is nothing like v.o.h. there's way more words in the b.o.m." apparently authenticity is directly connected to word count... no need to talk about subject matter or publication date. Beyond that, the logical fallacies committed by Austin as he "debunks" the critics and their use of fallacies is infuriating. Then, he goes on to blame John Dehlin for " creating the problems " why members leave the church..... Just a complete asshat. More of the same. Total loss of morality, honesty, and integrity in an effort to keep people believing as he does.
Have u Completely read view of the Hebrews? It actually IS very different from the book of Mormon. Again, you speak from willful ignorance, Which is foolish.
@truthseeker4286 Yes. I have read both books. Your assumption about me is totally unfounded and incorrect. If you want to engage with me about any of the specific things I said in my comment, I'd be happy to dialog. The argument i made about v.o.h. is directed specifically to Austin's claim that word count somehow has something to do with authenticity. Not that I need to entertain your question because it doesn't apply to the argument, but yes, I have "actually read" v.o.h. . I own a copy. It's incredibly boring. Believe it or not, it's even more boring than the Book of mormon. They are both book that claim to explain the "mound builder myth" .they both claim Israelite origin that populated the continent. Its actually ignorant, or dishonest to claim the book "very diffrent" from the book of mormon.
Had a good laugh at the mention of Throck Morton (surrounding discussion of Mark Hoffman). In medicine, there is the ThrockMorton Sign (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_sign) in which reader of an X-ray assesses which way the penis is pointing (left or right) as a clue to where the abnormality on the X-ray is. (It’s obviously a joke but in truth it’s a joke everyone in radiology knows about)
I’m so glad you brought up the card magic, and the multiple ways you can do things like forcing a card. My go-to example has always been David Blaine in Harrison Ford’s kitchen: th-cam.com/video/rB0wzy-xbwM/w-d-xo.html I don’t have to know exactly how he got the card into the exact fruit that Ford picked, but that doesn’t mean he used the gift & power of God. I can come up with a few different guesses, but if you do that with Mormonism you get criticized for being less faithful.
Unecessary repetitious language in The Book of Mormon: 'And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and the thirty and ninth, and the forty and first, and the forty and second, yea even until the forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first and the fifty and second, yea and even until the fifty and nine years had passed away. (4 Nephi 1:6.) Can you imagine labouring away, engraving all this on plates, when you could just write '21 years had passed away.' (?) This is Smith speaking, and trying to use as much filler as possible.
Yes. And all of that superfluous and pointless wordiness looks even more ridiculous when viewed together with all the passages in the BoM where some "prophet" is whining about how they have to leave out a lot of important and wonderful stuff because it's so hard to write stuff on the plates and there's not enough space. There are numerous places where a passage just alludes to there being precious and wonderful things that just can't be included due to some difficulty with regard to including them. The reader is then just supposed to imagine something precious and wonderful or get goosebumps thinking about the mysteries that are yet to be revealed. It's kind of like the temple ordinances that way (which is not surprising since Joe is responsible for both). You're told that it's all symbolic of wonderful, precious and eternal truths of some kind. But in reality it's just handshakes, funky costumes and weird chanting, with a bit of Pearl of Great Price narrative thrown in. The temple-goer has the burden of trying to mentally conjure up some faith-promoting meaning behind it...while also being told they can't talk about it with other people on account of it being "too sacred" (labeling it as "too sacred to talk about" outside the temple being itself a psychological manipulation, especially since there is also no practical or meaningful opportunity to talk about it inside the temple ).
Colby! Just past the 1 hour mark when you spoke about your hard journey, wanting to know the truth, and possibly going back into the church… Same. Oh how I hoped I would find something, anything, to prove my deep dives false. The one falsehood I found was the church is NOT true. You’re not rowing alone in your boat, dude! Many hold oars now too.
@ I was just noting and should’ve been more specific that they listened to the first 20 seconds regarding the Vernal Holly theory. Then they start the video and started to explain that this theory has long since then debunked and is probably the last thing that should’ve been in something like the sea. this is a good example of how we top past each other as apologist for both sides. One side will say something, and the other will activate the supposedly appropriate retort. Karren has a tendency to do this when he dismisses a concern with “that is anti-Mormon principle number blah blah blah.
So, if I'm understanding y'all's argument correctly, A View of the Hebrews might have influenced the structure and underlying plot of the Book of Mormon the same way that The Decameron might have influenced the structure and story plots of The Canterbury Tales? It's not a direct plagiarism but a copying of the ideas and structure?
Part of the issue is an all or nothing approach when it comes to truth and meaning of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon's claims are not literally true, the book has no meaning. This approach leads to believers to defend the indefensible and modify Joseph Smith's claim that Native Americans descended from Israel. On the other hand, this leads critics to throw everything out the window. I believe Joseph Smith reinterpreted ancient American history and the gospel based on a 19th-century Christian Protestant viewpoint. I like the teachings of taking care of the poor and relying on God's power to overcome challenges. I am not a fan of the racism and the heaven and hell dichotomy.
These points are all well taken, but respectfully, I’m seeing some overreaching in the application. Kolby, around 1:30 you correctly describe Austin’s treatment of critics as a monolithic, but aren’t you essentially doing the same thing with believers? Not in the sense that you use the weakest argument, but just that you guys are painting a wide spectrum of faith with broad brush. At the end of the day, the assertions you guys are disproving belong to the extreme orthodoxy, and however prominent those views are in the Church they are not monolithic. And I don’t believe you guys are acting in bad faith at all, it just leaves me wondering as to your awareness for where debunking ends and your own assertions begin. That transition point matters greatly, as it’s also in large part the shared boundary between dogma that hurts and belief that spurs people to do good. I think it matters a lot for truth’s sake as well, not to swing from debunking to making an unprovable counterclaim. Also, both of you are lawyers-a significant degree of your credibility in this space comes from your professional objectivity. In my eyes that is impaired by overreaching. Your task of addressing a broad spectrum with a concise message is admittedly difficult. At the very least, I would hope that you can have and show greater awareness for the fact that there are many of us who will largely call the same balls and strikes as you, but still maintain beliefs for reasons that I think you would actually find to be perfectly rational, had we the platform to share them. Much love and respect.
@aBrewster29 - I wouldn't agree that we're treating believers as a monolith. This series is, after all, a response to a specific apologetic work: The Light and Truth Letter. You can, of course, correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought we've been clear about that and kept our criticisms aimed at Austin's logic, his work, or the works upon which his Letter relies rather than addressed to all believers. Can you give me a more specific example of the overreach you're seeing? Without a more specific example, its a very hard allegation to meaningfully address. I'm glad to hear there are other people who maintain belief that would agree with us on some of these apologetic arguments--but I can't know that I'd agree the reasons they maintain belief are any more rational without knowing what those reasons are. I don't mean this as an insult, just as a reality that nearly everyone thinks their reasons for believing anything are perfectly rational. It's not like Austin Fife would admit his reasons for belief are irrational. That said--I'm always open to new information, so please reach out if you'd like to discuss those reasons for belief.
@ sure, Kolby, and as always, discussing in good faith. If I misquote you in any material way, please correct me. Given the time constraints I have to summarize, and it’s not my intent to put words in your mouth. Your $5 note forgery and RFM’s “Lincoln’s cell phone” analogies: they make a very good and important point, but they presuppose a package of interdependent, immutable “truths,” such that a single error sinks the collective. You guys applied this directly to the Book of Mormon, insinuating that any single error (e.g., anachronism) gives conclusive proof against the text’s claimed divinity. That’s an extrapolation. The direct implication of that evidence is limited to the paradigms of a wholly tight translation and literal interpretation. Around 1:17:00 you come down on “god of the gaps” beliefs. Have you ever seen avalanche videos online, where the viewpoint shows the cloud of snow and ice rushing toward the POV? Sometimes it reaches them, sometimes it doesn’t-in the words of your fellow Idahoan, “what the heck would you do in a situation like that?” Facing uncertainty under the duress of time, people have to act. You could say the same thing about opportunities so this isn’t inherently punitive. The point is, one can’t just sit around and wait for certainty, then turn back the clock and act accordingly. Humans have to take action amidst uncertainty constantly. Given the phenomena of entropy & origins, the composition of matter, cognizance, conscience and choice, I see compelling evidence that a divine power exists, and that my choices carry lasting significance. RFM has often said, reasonable minds may differ, and I find that particularly true on partial evidence. There’s a world of difference between drawing a reasonable conclusion with acceptance of uncertainty when faced with the binary imperative of action vs inaction and the assertion that one’s conclusion is universally correct. As for the BOM, while I definitely see JS’s fingerprints in the text, I also see complexities that I cannot honestly attribute to Joseph’s imagination, and these, combined with the good and divine connection I’ve experienced through the BOM do serve as evidence to me as to the text’s divinity and my corresponding sense of duty. That said, I’m well aware that imperfections in one spot mean potential errors in others, so the need for discernment and open mindedness is omnipresent. That is not what we see from apologists-they want to make allowances for ambiguity on truth claims while holding tightly to the dogma. It’s an utter contradiction. For what it’s worth, your analysis of the Light and Truth, itself, seemed very to the point, but repeatedly I noticed you and RFM used it as a springboard to paint broadly. It wasn’t something I thought to note at the time, and I don’t have the time to give it a second listen. To the extent that such wasn’t your intent, I think you’d want to know. Also, just a quick note Kolby, as we’ve exchanged comments on a few occasions now, I believe in the divine origins of the Church and that it has a bright future. The next hurdles for the Church to clear seem to be institutional humility and the proper role of faith in seeking the divine. I don’t mean to be a nuisance-I know criticism is needed, but I feel duty bound to promote the goal of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
@@aBrewster29 We've exchanged enough that I know you're discussing in good faith. I appreciate you commenting and taking the time because I do very much care about getting things right. I also appreciate you listening to the episodes so far, very much. On your first substantive paragraph--again, you haven't necessarily misquoted us, but I would say you need to keep the context in mind. We're responding to a specific apologetic work and attempting to explain (through the use of those analogies) why Austin's attempt to shift the burden of proof is a problem. Hopefully that addresses your point from my perspective: it feels like you feel some of these lines are directed at YOUR beliefs, but they're not. The entire series is directed at what Austin claims, so unless your claims are the same as Austin's--please keep that in mind as we move through. As for loose translations and non-literal readings--I just don't have a lot of interest in those arguments because they're entirely subjective and not falsifiable. I kind of hinted at that by dismissing other definitions of the word "true." I'm not saying, at all, that you need to agree with me on this--but you'll just have to know that my positions come with that caveat attached. On god of the gaps arguments, I think again I was specifically referencing Austin's direct (and rather hilarious) appeal to them for Book of Mormon origins. I agree with a lot of your paragraph here--of course we need to proceed in the face of uncertainty. This is one thing I say when people raise solipsistic arguments: "we have no choice BUT to act as if we share a reality but the people around us." Same idea. I also believe our consequences have lasting decisions. None of that requires a belief in the divine. I spent a few months down this particular rabbit hole after a few exchanges with Don Bradley so I feel pretty confident in my position here, but I don't fault anyone for concluding differently. But of course, those arguments and evidence only get us--at best--to Deism, not Theism. What complexity--specifically--do you think Joseph couldn't have generated based once we set our expectations according to the evidence we shared in this video? I think you know I'm asking this in good faith because while I hear how complex the Book of Mormon is all the time, I'm unaware of any part the Joseph couldn't have written when we correctly view his background and the timeline. I'll definitely consider your feedback but I'd also ask that as a listener you understand that this is not a scripted conversation. It would be repetitive and boring for us to say at the beginning of every sentence that our criticism of some apologetic point applies only to Austin. I'll just have to trust that people can interpret the statements made in the context of which they're given: debunking the Light and Truth Letter's terrible arguments. Unless you share his opinion on some point, I would not apply the criticism to yourself. I'm thrilled you're listening and hearing us out and will do my best to keep that in mind by not overreaching in the future. Your thoughts aren't a nuisance to me--I appreciate them. I have no issue with discussing these things with people who disagree with me, so long as we're both doing so in good faith. You and I have exchanged enough that I know I can expect that of you and I hope I've given you the same impression. While I don't share you opinion of the Church's origins (I have literally said before "there's no baby in the bathwater")--that doesn't mean I don't wish you the best in attempting to realize that vision. Truth is that if the Church moved in that direction to a greater degree, I'm not even sure the origins would matter that much to me. I sincerely doubt the Church will ever move appreciably in that direction, but that's just guessing based on the past. All to say--I really appreciate you listening. You're certainly not a nuisance and I hope you feel free to reach out to me directly anytime. My email is simply my first and last name--separated by a dot--at the domain owned by Google (I think that'll slip it past the auto-moderator). Please feel free to reach out directly for any further discussion.
@ thanks, Kolby. I appreciate the goodwill. Being that your presentation and these comments are in a public space, I want to be supportive where we agree on bathwater and respectfully disagree as I feel moved to do so. I certainly keep context in mind, but that goes both ways-your analysis of this particular work isn’t done in a vacuum, it’s part of a greater conversation in which you have taken a notable (and not rando) role. It’s not about anyone’s feelings or ego-like you said, it’s important to get the facts and logic right. As for the complexities I mentioned, it’s not the kind of thing that I would put forth as objective evidence, and so I haven’t compiled it. They’re just things I notice. A couple types/examples that come to mind: Details of historical significance: there’s a point at which there’s overlap between High Priest and Chief Judge, where in the course of their dealing with dissonance you can see the internal struggle between admonition and compulsion. I’m sorry I can’t find the reference; as I said, I haven’t compiled those. Why it matters: there’s often a difference in the nature of contrived details injected into a composed narrative and residual details from journaling. Details of doctrinal significance: in the story of the brother of Jared and the 16 stones we see the Lord walk him through the process of identifying a problem and coming up with a solution, where a Bible fan-fiction approach probably would’ve merely cut to the miraculous appearance of the hand of God. This one’s doubly interesting in that many historical elements of the Book of Ether are just bananas, but the doctrinal complexity is not what I would expect from JS’s era. A couple other items, Kolby, that are equally subjective: I agree that JS’s approach ignorance is way overblown. But writing a cohesive narrative is hard, even for educated authors with modern word processing. I have about 400 pages down on a historical fiction work, and I have stacks upon stacks of notes which so have to reference frequently. I’m very aware that the translation accounts must be taken with a grain of salt, but the facts as I see them support either a linear recording or a conspiracy to create the BOM whose lasting is, itself, highly implausible. Also the length of the BOM is implausible for the purpose of gain. Much like the Bible, there’s a lot of fluff and redundancy. Given the high cost of publishing it’s unlikely that a composition would’ve gone significantly longer than what was needed to be convincing, as there were real economic pressures at play. Of course, none of this proves anything. But for the amount of times I’ve heard critics invoke Occam’s Razor-you guys did so once in this episode-there are implausible situations on both sides of the debate.
@@aBrewster29 I have no idea what the first paragraph is supposed to mean. What, exactly, are you saying? Because I’ve spoken out on other podcasts-what? There’s no conclusion to the thought that I’m seeing. I agree entirely it’s about getting the facts right-I have zero desire to land any blow against the Church that isn’t earned. Thanks for sharing the examples. That kind of stuff doesn’t work for me because it’s entirely premised off of thinking how (or why) you personally think Joseph should have told a story if it were false. Given the significance of the claims, that is never going to be sufficient evidence for me. I acknowledge some other people will draw that line differently, which is their right, of course. Then the discussion would have to focus on whether that criterion could also invalidate the claimed holy book of other faiths. In case it isn’t clear, I do think the Book of Mormon is the most significant evidence for the Church. By talking about how Joseph’s education has been downplayed isn’t the same as saying it was easy. But the apologist’s claims we were responding to is that the non-supernatural claims are basically impossible. I think anyone who views the real record knows that simply isn’t the case. Ultimately though, there are just way too many problems with the Book of Mormon that tell me-like the fraudulent certificate-that it can’t be what it claims to be. So while I do still legitimately wonder how it came to pass, I feel pretty certain it isn’t historical. If it isn’t historical, it isn’t true in any sense that is meaningful to me personally. Again, I’m very open about this whenever I talk about truth. You’re right that there are facts or evidence that go both ways. I’ll admit your two examples are valid. But then please explain to me why the Book of Mormon builds sinking treasure into the narrative (unless you believe sinking treasure is a reality)? And unless we believe in sinking treasure, we need to be aware of Joseph’s history as a money digger and folk-magic practitioner. And the only way, it seems to me, to be a believer when acknowledging those facts is to start going loose with things Joseph claimed. In other words, any theory where the Book of Mormon is true means it inexplicably leads people to do good or because it hooks into some obscure “meta-truth” or something, I just have zero interest in that discussion. Not because I’m not interested in the topic, but when we arrive at a place of entirely subjective judgment-we’re just doing the equivalent of arguing over which color is best. So while, you’re right, there are arguments that go both ways-I’ll praise one from Austin this week as the best so far, a legitimate hit-they’re nowhere near equal in gravity. And that’s before you consider that I do believe extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And for me, the ultimate claim of Mormonism is that there’s a God that exists that wants to talk to me because he loves me. I was taught from a very young age that God would answer me if I ask. And I’ve begged and pleaded. You know I have studied this material. Do you believe I am lying about being unable to find God in this evidence? And if the answer is no, which I hope it is, why would any God that even vaguely resemble the one we were taught to believe in as a Father would allow this to be the evidence upon which we should believe in him? Why is the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Doctrine and Covenants replete with a God of miracles-the God Moroni taught about-never seen in real life? I’ve listened to General Authorities cry about bringing a gnat back to life. You know my grandfather lost his Bishop father in a car accident coming back from the temple on Christmas Eve that left his mother paralyzed? I struggle to see that raising a gnat is high on the list of priorities. The God of mysterious ways conveniently stopped doing anything miraculous the moment we could document history. I’m sorry, but I can no longer believe in the God of the Book of Mormon-because there’s no mapping of those claims to reality. Not sufficient historically or theologically. Why doesn’t the same God that silenced Korihor silence someone like me, today? If we’re divorced from evidence in the realm of faith? Fine. I’ve rejected the word as a valid thing to believe means anything substantive at all-but I get that, at least. Even Paul admitted the things of God are foolishness, right? I don’t mean that as an insult. If we’re down to the bedrock questions, the questions of Deism, a version of me agrees with you. But that’s not what we’re talking about. I mean this kindly and with all respect, but look at your own statement and see the difference in gravity. You don’t believe it’s plausible Joseph Smith would have wrote the narrative a certain way. So because of that uncertainty, you believe in some very epistemically demanding supernatural claims? That’s like saying because we don’t know how you’re going to get home tomorrow from work, it’s just as reasonable to believe you’ll arrive via helicopter as it is automobile. Does the Book of Mormon make me legitimately scratch my head? Yup. Does that mean I start wondering if magic stones and sinking treasures are real? Not really, no.
why did BYU make view of the Hebrews available for free? because they didn't want them to get it from the Tanners ! 😂 there are so many stupid arguments in that letter it's unbelievable
Did we claim they were? I relistened to that section and I’m not seeing where we said that, we simply mentioned chariots and animal husbandry. Your work is mentioned in the next chapter. I’ve been really, really trying to figure out your methodology and I honestly cannot. Beyond your book and the videos you’ve done with FAIR, is there a good way for me to wrap my head around your methodology for your translation of the “Caractors” document?
@@KolbyReddish I was referring to the comment after about 1:01:24, seemed to say that animals were involved in various things, including warfare. Maybe I misheard it. Not really a big deal, just thought I would mention it, you seem to indicate that you are wanting to be accurate, which I think is good, I try to do the same. I didn't know that I was mentioned in the Light and Truth letter tbh. I just looked at it and I guess there is some passing reference to some of my work. I am not aware of any videos related to my work done by FAIR, I don't have any affiliation with that organization (or really any apologetic organization tbh) and have never presented anything at any of their conferences (I actually have only gone to a couple of their conference, most of their conference topics don't really interest me all that much tbh). I have had to deal with the Interpreter Foundation as I have donated money to Royal Skousen's Original Text project, and that is the pathway he has chosen for donations to get to his project. I do the occasional podcast when asked and if I happen to feel like it, but don't have any ties to any of therm. As far as methodology, of course hard to condense a 400 page book into a comment. Since most of the document consists of Egyptian hieratic with a bit of demotic, I just used the standard translation methodology used in the standard translation of hieratic and demotic. For hieratic, the glyphs are identified using Möller's Hieratische Paläographie, with a direct cut and paste from Möller listing the corresponding Möller number. Using the standard index by Vervloesem I identified (and showed) the corresponding Gardiner Number glyph (aka monumental Egyptian). The Egyptian dictionaries are based on the monumental Egyptian, there are no dictionaries constructed for the hieratic, that is why one has to go through the process just described. Standard Egyptian dictionaries were used, primarily those based on Faulkner which are formatted better than Faulkner which make them easier to search which saves time (ie Dickson, Vygus). There was a very little use of Budge as some Egyptologists are a bit critical of his dictionary. When I did use it I usually supported it by other references. As far as demotic, fortunately it is bit easier to translated than hieratic in the sense that the Chicago Demotic Dictionary does have the glyphs represented with the actual definition and Egyptian phonetic word alongside of it, although it is heavily based on Erichsen's Demotisches Glossar and relies on references to it, so one has to consult Erichsen for many of the glyphs. Anyway, pretty standard translation methodology, anyone who translates hieratic or demotic is familiar with the method used to translate these languages. Some have complained a bit that I didn't just present the final translation up front instead of until Chapter 11, as I chose to handle the numbers, calendrical markers, names, and directional glyphs each as their own group. Any translation of numbers and number systems has to be addressed separately as a unit as it involves things like evaluating numeric notation and the rules that apply to the changes in historical number systems through time. I chose to deal with the names separately mostly because the names are pretty much all calques (which the BOM hints at) which is not unexpected given the tendency for metonymic names in Biblical hebrew and the calques are also seen between Mesoamerican languages as opposed to phonetic transliterated borrowings, so one has to understand that the Egyptian is going to represent the meaning of the name and not necessarily the phonetic elements, although some do as well. The calendar markers were handled separately because, although they do have Egyptian origins for the glyphs, the chronological system matches the Mesoamerican system (ISIG, DNIG, ADI, PDI and Period Ending Glyphs). Most of the Caractors Document calendrical marker glyphs are also found loaned into and directly correlate with the corresponding Maya calendrical marker glyphs, either as a direct glyph form or as an infix glyph. Because of this, it was useful to discuss these as a separate chapter. Anyway, there were obviously more specific methods used for a few of the characters as some were combination or overlapping glyphs. That's why it took 400 pages. Anyway, that is the Cliff's note version. I don't know if you have read the last updated book or not. It is free to download on my website, just do a web search for bmslr it should be the first thing to pop up. Based on your comment, I might be useful for me to write up a more layman's version of the methodology, this book, as are all of my books, written to academic standards, which sometimes makes them perhaps more difficult to understand for the layman. I am currently working on a couple other projects so will probably have to delay that for a while. Perhaps my book ended up for some a bit like the tax code I suppose, even lawyers and accountants have difficulty divining the IRS methodologies (if they actually have any LOL), however, most of the comments I have received back have indicated that if they spent the time reading the whole book they understood the methodology used.
@@jerrygrover8992 oh, we definitely do-that’s why I went and checked. That’s definitely odd, FAIR has a video of you presenting at a conference up right now from about seven years ago (I re-searched it just to make sure I didn’t remember incorrectly). I get you’re trying to condense a lot of work into a comment but I’m not sure it made things any clearer for me. Do you remember any podcasts you’ve done that really dumb it down for a lawyer?
@@KolbyReddish As I recall I have only done one limited conference presentation (on the numbers) on the topic at a BMAF conference and based on the date you have indicated it is probably that one. FAIR must have linked to it? Idn. I did another presentation long ago on the geology of the BOM, and one on Ziff and the metallurgy of the plates. Those are the only presentations I think I have done and only because I was asked. As far as podcasts the few I have done I don’t think would give you what you are asking for. Maybe something I could do in the future, but tbh, most podcasts (I expect yours is the same) are interested in views or donations so to some extent are entertainment playing generally to the targeted audience. The nature of this material is not really entertaining tbh. I personally don’t really view podcasts as places for serious academic research based on what I have seen. Not condemning them, but as I said they are primarily entertainment with most being monetized with hopes of viewership. A person is really interested in the particulars of this material they should just read the research and can ask me questions through my website. Or if they formally publish somewhere something of academic grade properly cited on the topic I might respond (so far I am unaware of anything). Sorry I don’t have anything online for what you are looking for.
I can't stand the use of occham’s razor in the post-mormon community. It is usually misintroduced/explained and approaches a thought stopping cliche in its use.
I agree, it is never used in scientific papers that I have ever seen. Science presents the data. While it is true that in mathematics one often tries to simply equations to make them more workable, in science I have never seen the “all things being equal” scenario presented. Unfortunately it isn’t really post Mormons making this error it is basically a common error made by most non scientists
@@jerrygrover8992Occam’s razor is used all the time in science. It is simply a heuristic based on the principle of parsimony and is used in developing theoretical frameworks in many different areas of scientific inquiry. When attempting to identify the best explanation for a particular phenomenon it is almost always a good idea to try to minimize unnecessary assumptions that are more likely to distract us from the actual best explanation.
@@clinthilton1348 Hmm, your comment trigger a plagiarism alert on my computer, looks like you just cut and pasted it off of a Google search AI. Anyway, I can tell you that no self respecting scientist will use Occam's razor when data is available. It originated for use in theology and philosophy as Occam was a theologian. It is not a scientific principle. Considering the scientific method, Occam's razor is definitely not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result. If one submitted a scientific paper relying on Occam's razor without data it would be laughed out of the editorial room. In all my years I have never seen a peer reviewed scientific paper that relied on Occam's razor instead of data. Maybe there is one out there, but it never would have passed any of the peer review that I have been a part of.
@@CommonLaw-UncommonlyExplained I need to rewatch if it was used correctly or not. That isn't as much my point. Rather, it is overused in the post-mormon space, which now approaches a cliche. The razor is about parsimony and explanatory power; yet post-mormon videos often only evoke the parsimony in their explanations. I'm calling for a ditch a cliche, and to be more rigorous. We don't need the razor.
I agree that not all parallels are created equal. I also think the parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book Of Mormon are laughable and incredibly surface level. I think the parallels between Joseph Smith Sr’s Tree of Life dream and Lehi’s are examples of theological poetry and while not mere coincidence are not this glaring problem others make it out to be. I don’t know enough about The Narrative Of Zosimus to have an opinion on any potential parallels but I love how we’re being so dismissive of any of them out of the gate as if we aren’t the ones who have been clinging to every possible book or sermon that was around at the time as potential influences on Joseph Smith regardless of how far fetched they may be. How are we supposed to take these discussions seriously if one side is expecting contradictory ideas to bend the knee to them and are happily picking and choosing which parallels matter and which ones don’t while also claiming to be against these same double standards in apologetic circles?
![Do Linguistics Prove the Book of Mormon True? Debunking the Light & Truth Letter Chapter 3 [RFM 375]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/15rbHqtd_PE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Do Linguistics Prove the Book of Mormon True? Debunking the Light & Truth Letter Chapter 3 [RFM 375]](/img/tr.png)
![How Joseph Smith Created Mormonism [Mormonism Live 213]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBUhr9xs3i4/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Case of the Boy Who Killed His Little Sister [RFM 380]](/img/n.gif)
I love you and Colby together!!! MAKE THIS A REGULAR Event!!!!! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Dynamic Duo!
I especially like how it's two lawyers that think like me with so much extra clarification and disclaimers. MORE of THIS
Kolby and RFM, thank you for the logical, evidence based breakdown of the Light on Truth
Letter. You both are giants amongst us mere mortals. Keep up the great work, and thank you for these great episodes!
I am a NoMo, but love this long, in depth discussions, please keep doing them!
And speaking of repetitions:
"Whenever [Joseph Smith] found his speech growing too modern-which was about every sentence or two-he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet." -- Mark Twain
So what. As you read the book Mormon, do you honestly arrive at that same conclusion?
I really hope this series continue, I like that it reinforce what I know about logical fallacies.
This is the best content currently happening in the Mormon related space! Love it! Keep going!!!
Thanks!
I must say gentlemen, if I ever needed something critiqued, you two R F M and Kolby, are right up there top of my list!
Thank guys!! It takes me 3 listens to achieve some understanding
Cuz I’m a bit sloooow
1:39:00 Thank you for making this point. I've been doing a response series to the LDS Truth Claims lecture series, and this is one of the points that the apologist in that series tries to get away with. I've been arguing that this is fallacious reasoning, and y'all just drove that point home in a masterful way!
I am loving this series so much.
I am loving these. Thank you guys.
I have always loved those able to masterfully deconstruct apologetics. You guys are among the best. I have a particular respect for exmos who then go on to apply that same skepticism to other faith claims as well.
Austin's failure to "develop a working naturalistic theory explaining the Book of Mormon that made sense" is nothing more than Austin's own faith-motivated failure to recognize that reasonable "working" naturalistic theories do exist. Despite his half-clever attempt to use his personal lack of objectivity as a device to shift the burden of proof, many reasonable people have had no problem at all in developing highly plausible naturalistic theories explaining the Book of Mormon that do make sense and...at a minimum...are much more sensible and plausible than Austin's own "working" supernatural theory...a theory that requires belief in magic translation crystals or stones, a teleporting angel and an ancient artifact (a set of gold plates) that magically disappears when the teleporting angel hauls them up to heaven.
Can you name one reasonable "working" naturalistic theory that does exist, that actually does work? Remember a 21 year-old kid dictated this out of his mouth Over a relatively short time.
Can u name one reasonable "working" naturalistic theory that actually exists?
And you did say the correct word :"theory". After all these years, there are just theories, which have been talked about thoroughly. There's a reason why they're still just theories… Because nothing conclusive has been brought forth.
@@truthseeker4286can you do that for the Koran or other holy books? Because if not you’re just engaged in special pleading.
Critics may never definitively explain where every line of the Book of Mormon comes from-but that doesn’t somehow make it “true.”
@@truthseeker4286 "Remember a 21 year-old kid dictated this out of his mouth Over a relatively short time." Suuure. That's what happened...according to....? I've seen you constantly on post-Mormon video comment sections spamming out what you (apparently) think are faith-promoting zingers of truthiness or whatever. As in this case, your keyboard efforts are fatally undermined by your lack of mental effort...as in you don't even "get an 'A' for effort'. Even according to the Church's officially approved narrative, the Book of Mormon was not produced by a "21 year-old kid" who "dictated this out of his mouth over a relatively short time." According to the official history, didn't he start talking about the angel and the sacred plates in 1823, with the "translation" work being completed in 1829? Did he, through some kind of gift and power of god, become a "21 year-old kid" in 1823 and remain so until 1829? Or did he continue to be a 21 year-old kid until the book was actually published in 1830? We're talking about plausibility, "truthseeker". Not religiously themed fractured fairy tales.
Yes please continue these substantive deep dive responses!
What an interesting, enjoyable and entertaining discussion 👏 great work, thank you and improving yet more my preparation for a potential encounter with mormon missionaries in Edinburgh. Thanks guys ❤
Loved this, you guys are the antidote for apologetics!
If I'm unable to explain every aspect of a Penn and Teller illusion, the unavoidable conclusion is that magic is real!
At the root of the apologists' arguments is the shifting of the burden of proof to the critics. The Lincoln cell phone analogy illustrates that point. Understanding the basic idea that the affirmative (NOT the negative) has the burden of proof is key to seeing through the bs.
A point about using other sources to write the Book of Memory. In an era 1) that encouraged memorization, and 2) where people had few things to read and thus read them again and again, Smith may well have committed major portions of the KJV and other sources to memory.
If you read, maybe even two pages of a book of Mormon, it's empirically evident that your assertion about the 21 y/o kid is absurd.
@@truthseeker4286 Why?
So excited for all the episodes to come 🙌😀
You guys knocked it out of the park!
If you want to play with the BIG BOYS in Mormon apologetics- you have to TAKE the criticism along with the praise. The man who wrote this letter doesn’t seem to understand that simple fact.
Here’s how my mother would have said it, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”
Great series! Please continue!
Yes, please keep these coming. And if you can get the writer to come on to defend his blather, all the better.
Regarding complex works written in short periods, I offer these 10 Bestselling Books Written in Less Than 2 Months
1. Casino Royale by Ian Fleming: 2 months
2. As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner: 6 weeks
3. King Solomon’s Mines by H. Rider Haggard: 6 weeks
4. A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens: 6 weeks
5. On the Road by Jack Kerouac: 3 weeks
6. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess: 3 weeks
7. The Maigret series by Georges Simenon: 11 days
8. Rasselas by Samuel Johnson: 1 week
9. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson: 3 days
10. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne: 2.5 days
And here's one more for the list...
"Hubbard wrote Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health at that time, allegedly completing the 180,000-word book in six weeks."
(Wikipedia, "History of Dianetics")
Also, the books you listed are actually GOOD.
The Book of Mormon is badly written and hard to follow.
It seems that this for Mormons constitutes "complexity" and that this is a virtue.
@@Themanyfacesofego all very valid points, IMO.
You've gotta be kidding. I've read 1,3,4,5,7,8, and 9, and none are even close to being complex books.
@@monkpato Could you give an example of a complex book?
@@monkpato that's your comeback? They're not complex enough? Seriously?
(did someone say "Goal Post Move"?)
The fact of the matter remains: A complete, fully formed novel - even of some great length - CAN be written from scratch well within the timeframe that Mormon Apologists tout as being a miracle for The Book of Mormon, can't it?
Furthermore, if you REALLY want to argue that The Book of Mormon gets a Special Pleading because it's "complex", I would argue that it's convoluted, not complex. And convolution in writing ain't no miracle, it's what happens when you're in a hurry and rushing the product out.
Loved every minute!
I always learn something interesting when I listen to you guys. Today I learned a few interesting somethings. 😃
Great episode. I'll have to watch the first one and the first 3 quarters of this one. Great points!
@KolbyReddish perhaps to keep Cardon entertained, you might consider throwing in some "Ya know what I mean?" and "It's codified"'s
B. H. Roberts said in his writings that there were so many areas the BoM sounded like The View of Hebrews that it was impossible to state JS did not use it a basis for his story.
Read “Studies of the Book of Mormon “ by BH Roberts for a detailed explanation of the fall of Roberts.
1/ have you read all of View of the Hebrews? If not, your claim is made in ignorance and confirmation bias.
2/ If you made this claim mainly on snippets from the CES letter, then u confirm the above.
@ I purchased, read and studied that and “Mormonism unveiled “. This two books and “Studies of the BOM” gave me all the information I need to quit the church after 64 years of devotion.
@@truthseeker4286 In the initial post there was no mention of the CES letter but rather the fact that influential LDS Seventy BH Roberts was disturbed by all the parallels between the two books. Have you read VOH? I haven't, but I have read Roberts list of similarities. How do you explain them away? Or was BH lying?
This is AMAZING! This is the Anti-Mormon dream team. Watch out JD, Kolby and RFM have it going on!
If the daguerreotype of Lincoln holding a cell phone (in the discussion starting at 20:47 ) had some faith-promoting relevance to the Book of Mormon, my guess is that apologists would insist that it is a genuine daguerreotype image (made in 1862 or whatever year it's captioned with) in a manner similar to the way they deal with the existence of the "NHM" letters (actually only rough equivalents to those letters in the Hebrew alphabet) appearing at a location that lines up with a path taken by Lehi, said route only being based on guesses made by apologists...based on a very ambiguous, detail-poor description of the journey provided in the BoM. (More plausible explanations would be rejected out of hand.)
IOW, the apologists would create a series of hypothetical connections which are each just assumed to be true, then reach the conclusion that those "connections" prove that the daguerreotype is true, without ever acknowledging the tenuously hypothetical nature of the assumptions. "Look! The phone that Lincoln is holding is clearly an A p p l e cell phone. Look! There is an article from an 1862 newspaper mentioning a visit that Lincoln made to an apple orchard in Maryland that expressly described Lincoln as holding an apple in his right hand. In the daguerreotype, Lincoln is holding an apple in his right hand. This proves that the daguerreotype is a genuine image of Lincoln holding a cell phone in 1862. Anti-Mormons have never been able to prove conclusively that the newspaper article was referring to an apple that was just an edible fruit."
I must say that was absolutely brilliant! 🎉
Absolutely spell bound! I could have listened for many more hours!!!!!
RFM: a minor point: I think that Hoffman was done in when Throckmorton discovered that Hoffman must have hung up his forgeries to dry, and under high magnification Throckmorton could see the ink running slightly downward. Actually Hoffman replicated ink from the period so that detail was correct. Several documents had this anomaly, so apparently Hoffman was hung out to dry because he hung his works up to dry (pardon the pun).
Thanks for the clarification! ❤
Now that I've watched this entire thing, I think this episode is crucial to understanding the talents and abilities of Joseph Smith. You guys did a great job showing that he absolutely had the ability to dictate and produce exactly what he dictated and produced and anyone who wants to deny that is just ignoring the evidence staring right at them and engaged in wishful thinking. Hands down the Book of Mormon is the production and brain child of Joseph Smith.
Where is your evidence that any on earth Could dictate something like the book of Mormon? A 23-year-old kid.
Where is your evidence, where is even one person on earth that could dictate something whatJoseph Smith did.
How about you ? Could u dictate even one coherent page. Go ahead and try it right now for all to see.
Not at all. Unless one goes to leaps and bounds and mental gymnastics to suggest that he simply dictated this out of his mind in a relatively short time.
It's funny how Joseph Smith is now portrayed as a supremely abled savant. And not the ignorant and stupid individual that critics initially claim for decades.
Name one person on earth past present that Has dictated such a volume.
I suggest you go look at the original transcripts of the book of Mormon... The paper that the scribes wrote on as Joseph dictated. Have you? It is one continuous flow.
Go ahead try doing even two pages right now without looking at a computer or an iPhone. Turn your lights off and do it under candlelight. Oh, but you need time to memorize a bunch of pages. OK, take a week and memorize a bunch pages and then dictate it. And remember, no Oopsies, no redos
@@truthseeker4286 I come up with mock kjv stuff all the time. It's a lot easier than you think. Also I've read enough of the book if mormon and doctrine and covenants to be able to adopt that style. Chris Nemelka has done it with his book of Lehi. If you saturate yourself with that lingo it's possible to adopt it as your own. Although I'm sure there is nothing I can say to convince you.
@@truthseeker4286 you want to talk about mental gymnastics? How do you rationalize the 42-60 year old men marying the 15 year old girls? In what world is that ok?
@@truthseeker4286we don’t have a complete original manuscript of the Book of Mormon-so what were you looking at? We have what amounts to only 28% of the original manuscript.
Nice commentary and dissection
Great job Legal Eagles!
Thanks for the video.
A high-school education really only became common for ordinary Americans starting in the 1900s. Prior to that, an 8th-grade education was typical at best.
Great research as always.
Reading that 1830 letter, it sounds like Smith's mind was basically a ChatGPT that was trained on St. Paul.
Like a ChatGPT, which is impossible. So your assertion is absurd.
I'm only about thirty minutes in, but I have to say, Austin, have you ever met a four year old before? They cannot read or write, but man, they can tell stories all day. So even if the theory that Joseph Smith was uneducated and couldn't read or write, he could still communicate and make up stories that compiles the book of mormon. I'm fairly certain that if I documented everything and the stories my four-year-old said I could put together a book too and call it scripture
Kolby. You are not boring! On the other hand Cordon’s mental gymnastics is so tiring and yawn worthy!,
Interesting that Welch pointed out the parallels to Zosimus since he originated the idea of Chiasmus. Both ideas suffer from the same problem: depending upon the selection of words or concepts one can create a Chiasmus out of just about any writing. Similarly, depending on the scope of the parallel you can draw parallels between just about any two books: just draw the parallel "wide" enough. This is also similar to the idea of proving the Book of Mormon by listing the things the BOM lists that were unknown in 1820 but are known today: the basic problem being that the writer can "control" the results by choosing the categories. For example, the BOM says there were "highways." Sure enough, "highways" have been discovered in Meso-America. But the Roman Empire was chockfull of "highways" too. So what does it prove? Nothing, because the parallel is way too wide. If we found a street sign in Meso-America that said "Lehi Way," well that would be a real parallel. Unfortunately, no parallel anywhere near this specificity has been found, and that's a real problem for the BOM. Also, if you are going to try to tie Meso-America to the BOM, consider what is NOT mentioned in the BOM: jaguars, chocolate, squash, potatoes, etc., etc. That is, lots of things that are ubiquitous in that region, but without a mention in the BOM. Corn for example, has a passing mention in the BOM, but the entire Meso-American region seems to be completely dominated by Corn. Likewise, Wheat & Barley are mentioned in the BOM, but seem to have a very slight (if any) connection to the BOM.
Why didn't they send the eagles? Because the Nazgul and/or Sauron would have seen them approaching. They (Frodo, Sam, and Golum) pointedly though journeyed through the Dead Marshes and then used the pass of Cirith Ungol to access Mordor precisely because that was the only blind spot in the security curtain they could slip through (and that's in the books and movies).
The other thing to remember is JS didn’t produce the Book of Mormon we have today he produced the 1st edition - and when you read that edition it stands out like a sore thumb where it’s horrible English and then flowing into wonderful KJV language where it’s easy to see oh here’s where he’s plagiarized from the Bible and then bam we’re back to awkward language again
Regarding your comment about Joseph saying "it's not for the world to know" about the BOM, another reason why he might not have studied it much is because it came from his mind, so why would he feel the need to study something that he produced? And then without studying it regularly, he's naturally not going to verbatim quote from it often.
Great episode
Thank you Mr and Mr.
I find me a little confused with the reaction from true belivers (from any religion) and specila from mormons calling thouse leaving as lazy.
I do undnerstand there exits serious scholars but,
I find it disterbing that so many pull a trumph card called ”Faith” and that indication to me that they are lasy for not find real evidence.
Its sad that smart people like you have to be part of this absurde sitution. Understand its necisairy for helping people.
And to be honest… I love how your brains works.
THANK YOU !🍾💃
the "new Testament quotes old Testament"-argument is so unbelievably silly I'm embarrassed someone's willing to state it 😂
True
The divine origin theory is analogous to the claim that a UFO comes from aliens in outer space. Even if I can't prove the source of the object, I don't just assume that the only explanation is aliens. I don't need a counter theory to debunk a theory.
interesting. Thanks
Kolby, I appreciate the gesture but no need to apologize. 🤙
Great job!
Is it more likely that Nephi and the other book of Mormon authors just happened to write with a similar style/grammar as the authors of the late war and view of the Hebrews or Joseph smith?
Austin also has errors on his book of Enoch and book of Moses correlations where he references mahujah. He says mahujah shows up in the book of giants. It doesn't. It's mahawai or mahaway. Yes, it's still similar but his letter shows an exact match with the book of Moses which isn't the case. Colby Townsend has an excellent rebuttal on the similarities.
We told people all the time they didn’t need to read the whole BOM to know it was true so to critique the fact that you broke down a chapter without reading the whole book is pretty hilarious
Yes, continue!
I just listened to Austin on "mormonism with the Murph". There is nothing new to see here. Just more of the same b.s. apologetics. "B.o.m is nothing like v.o.h. there's way more words in the b.o.m." apparently authenticity is directly connected to word count... no need to talk about subject matter or publication date.
Beyond that, the logical fallacies committed by Austin as he "debunks" the critics and their use of fallacies is infuriating.
Then, he goes on to blame John Dehlin for " creating the problems " why members leave the church.....
Just a complete asshat. More of the same. Total loss of morality, honesty, and integrity in an effort to keep people believing as he does.
Have u Completely read view of the Hebrews? It actually IS very different from the book of Mormon. Again, you speak from willful ignorance, Which is foolish.
@truthseeker4286 Yes. I have read both books. Your assumption about me is totally unfounded and incorrect. If you want to engage with me about any of the specific things I said in my comment, I'd be happy to dialog. The argument i made about v.o.h. is directed specifically to Austin's claim that word count somehow has something to do with authenticity.
Not that I need to entertain your question because it doesn't apply to the argument, but yes, I have "actually read" v.o.h. . I own a copy. It's incredibly boring. Believe it or not, it's even more boring than the Book of mormon. They are both book that claim to explain the "mound builder myth" .they both claim Israelite origin that populated the continent. Its actually ignorant, or dishonest to claim the book "very diffrent" from the book of mormon.
Had a good laugh at the mention of Throck Morton (surrounding discussion of Mark Hoffman). In medicine, there is the ThrockMorton Sign (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_sign) in which reader of an X-ray assesses which way the penis is pointing (left or right) as a clue to where the abnormality on the X-ray is. (It’s obviously a joke but in truth it’s a joke everyone in radiology knows about)
I’m so glad you brought up the card magic, and the multiple ways you can do things like forcing a card.
My go-to example has always been David Blaine in Harrison Ford’s kitchen:
th-cam.com/video/rB0wzy-xbwM/w-d-xo.html
I don’t have to know exactly how he got the card into the exact fruit that Ford picked, but that doesn’t mean he used the gift & power of God. I can come up with a few different guesses, but if you do that with Mormonism you get criticized for being less faithful.
More please
Unecessary repetitious language in The Book of Mormon:
'And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and the thirty and ninth, and the forty and first, and the forty and second, yea even until the forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first and the fifty and second, yea and even until the fifty and nine years had passed away.
(4 Nephi 1:6.)
Can you imagine labouring away, engraving all this on plates, when you could just write
'21 years had passed away.' (?)
This is Smith speaking, and trying to use as much filler as possible.
Yes. And all of that superfluous and pointless wordiness looks even more ridiculous when viewed together with all the passages in the BoM where some "prophet" is whining about how they have to leave out a lot of important and wonderful stuff because it's so hard to write stuff on the plates and there's not enough space.
There are numerous places where a passage just alludes to there being precious and wonderful things that just can't be included due to some difficulty with regard to including them. The reader is then just supposed to imagine something precious and wonderful or get goosebumps thinking about the mysteries that are yet to be revealed.
It's kind of like the temple ordinances that way (which is not surprising since Joe is responsible for both). You're told that it's all symbolic of wonderful, precious and eternal truths of some kind. But in reality it's just handshakes, funky costumes and weird chanting, with a bit of Pearl of Great Price narrative thrown in. The temple-goer has the burden of trying to mentally conjure up some faith-promoting meaning behind it...while also being told they can't talk about it with other people on account of it being "too sacred" (labeling it as "too sacred to talk about" outside the temple being itself a psychological manipulation, especially since there is also no practical or meaningful opportunity to talk about it inside the temple ).
Colby! Just past the 1 hour mark when you spoke about your hard journey, wanting to know the truth, and possibly going back into the church…
Same. Oh how I hoped I would find something, anything, to prove my deep dives false. The one falsehood I found was the church is NOT true. You’re not rowing alone in your boat, dude! Many hold oars now too.
Reading BH Roberts analysis of the BoM was one of the nails in my testimony coffin. He was one of my heroes.
The commentary on the vernal Holley maps went on and on😂
But it needed to.
@ I was just noting and should’ve been more specific that they listened to the first 20 seconds regarding the Vernal Holly theory. Then they start the video and started to explain that this theory has long since then debunked and is probably the last thing that should’ve been in something like the sea. this is a good example of how we top past each other as apologist for both sides. One side will say something, and the other will activate the supposedly appropriate retort. Karren has a tendency to do this when he dismisses a concern with “that is anti-Mormon principle number blah blah blah.
So, if I'm understanding y'all's argument correctly, A View of the Hebrews might have influenced the structure and underlying plot of the Book of Mormon the same way that The Decameron might have influenced the structure and story plots of The Canterbury Tales? It's not a direct plagiarism but a copying of the ideas and structure?
Thumb nail 10 out of 10 !
Part of the issue is an all or nothing approach when it comes to truth and meaning of the Book of Mormon.
If the Book of Mormon's claims are not literally true, the book has no meaning.
This approach leads to believers to defend the indefensible and modify Joseph Smith's claim that Native Americans descended from Israel.
On the other hand, this leads critics to throw everything out the window.
I believe Joseph Smith reinterpreted ancient American history and the gospel based on a 19th-century Christian Protestant viewpoint.
I like the teachings of taking care of the poor and relying on God's power to overcome challenges. I am not a fan of the racism and the heaven and hell dichotomy.
These points are all well taken, but respectfully, I’m seeing some overreaching in the application.
Kolby, around 1:30 you correctly describe Austin’s treatment of critics as a monolithic, but aren’t you essentially doing the same thing with believers? Not in the sense that you use the weakest argument, but just that you guys are painting a wide spectrum of faith with broad brush. At the end of the day, the assertions you guys are disproving belong to the extreme orthodoxy, and however prominent those views are in the Church they are not monolithic.
And I don’t believe you guys are acting in bad faith at all, it just leaves me wondering as to your awareness for where debunking ends and your own assertions begin. That transition point matters greatly, as it’s also in large part the shared boundary between dogma that hurts and belief that spurs people to do good. I think it matters a lot for truth’s sake as well, not to swing from debunking to making an unprovable counterclaim. Also, both of you are lawyers-a significant degree of your credibility in this space comes from your professional objectivity. In my eyes that is impaired by overreaching.
Your task of addressing a broad spectrum with a concise message is admittedly difficult. At the very least, I would hope that you can have and show greater awareness for the fact that there are many of us who will largely call the same balls and strikes as you, but still maintain beliefs for reasons that I think you would actually find to be perfectly rational, had we the platform to share them. Much love and respect.
@aBrewster29 - I wouldn't agree that we're treating believers as a monolith. This series is, after all, a response to a specific apologetic work: The Light and Truth Letter. You can, of course, correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought we've been clear about that and kept our criticisms aimed at Austin's logic, his work, or the works upon which his Letter relies rather than addressed to all believers. Can you give me a more specific example of the overreach you're seeing? Without a more specific example, its a very hard allegation to meaningfully address.
I'm glad to hear there are other people who maintain belief that would agree with us on some of these apologetic arguments--but I can't know that I'd agree the reasons they maintain belief are any more rational without knowing what those reasons are. I don't mean this as an insult, just as a reality that nearly everyone thinks their reasons for believing anything are perfectly rational. It's not like Austin Fife would admit his reasons for belief are irrational. That said--I'm always open to new information, so please reach out if you'd like to discuss those reasons for belief.
@ sure, Kolby, and as always, discussing in good faith. If I misquote you in any material way, please correct me. Given the time constraints I have to summarize, and it’s not my intent to put words in your mouth.
Your $5 note forgery and RFM’s “Lincoln’s cell phone” analogies: they make a very good and important point, but they presuppose a package of interdependent, immutable “truths,” such that a single error sinks the collective. You guys applied this directly to the Book of Mormon, insinuating that any single error (e.g., anachronism) gives conclusive proof against the text’s claimed divinity. That’s an extrapolation. The direct implication of that evidence is limited to the paradigms of a wholly tight translation and literal interpretation.
Around 1:17:00 you come down on “god of the gaps” beliefs. Have you ever seen avalanche videos online, where the viewpoint shows the cloud of snow and ice rushing toward the POV? Sometimes it reaches them, sometimes it doesn’t-in the words of your fellow Idahoan, “what the heck would you do in a situation like that?” Facing uncertainty under the duress of time, people have to act. You could say the same thing about opportunities so this isn’t inherently punitive. The point is, one can’t just sit around and wait for certainty, then turn back the clock and act accordingly. Humans have to take action amidst uncertainty constantly. Given the phenomena of entropy & origins, the composition of matter, cognizance, conscience and choice, I see compelling evidence that a divine power exists, and that my choices carry lasting significance. RFM has often said, reasonable minds may differ, and I find that particularly true on partial evidence. There’s a world of difference between drawing a reasonable conclusion with acceptance of uncertainty when faced with the binary imperative of action vs inaction and the assertion that one’s conclusion is universally correct.
As for the BOM, while I definitely see JS’s fingerprints in the text, I also see complexities that I cannot honestly attribute to Joseph’s imagination, and these, combined with the good and divine connection I’ve experienced through the BOM do serve as evidence to me as to the text’s divinity and my corresponding sense of duty.
That said, I’m well aware that imperfections in one spot mean potential errors in others, so the need for discernment and open mindedness is omnipresent. That is not what we see from apologists-they want to make allowances for ambiguity on truth claims while holding tightly to the dogma. It’s an utter contradiction.
For what it’s worth, your analysis of the Light and Truth, itself, seemed very to the point, but repeatedly I noticed you and RFM used it as a springboard to paint broadly. It wasn’t something I thought to note at the time, and I don’t have the time to give it a second listen. To the extent that such wasn’t your intent, I think you’d want to know.
Also, just a quick note Kolby, as we’ve exchanged comments on a few occasions now, I believe in the divine origins of the Church and that it has a bright future. The next hurdles for the Church to clear seem to be institutional humility and the proper role of faith in seeking the divine. I don’t mean to be a nuisance-I know criticism is needed, but I feel duty bound to promote the goal of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
@@aBrewster29 We've exchanged enough that I know you're discussing in good faith. I appreciate you commenting and taking the time because I do very much care about getting things right. I also appreciate you listening to the episodes so far, very much.
On your first substantive paragraph--again, you haven't necessarily misquoted us, but I would say you need to keep the context in mind. We're responding to a specific apologetic work and attempting to explain (through the use of those analogies) why Austin's attempt to shift the burden of proof is a problem. Hopefully that addresses your point from my perspective: it feels like you feel some of these lines are directed at YOUR beliefs, but they're not. The entire series is directed at what Austin claims, so unless your claims are the same as Austin's--please keep that in mind as we move through. As for loose translations and non-literal readings--I just don't have a lot of interest in those arguments because they're entirely subjective and not falsifiable. I kind of hinted at that by dismissing other definitions of the word "true." I'm not saying, at all, that you need to agree with me on this--but you'll just have to know that my positions come with that caveat attached.
On god of the gaps arguments, I think again I was specifically referencing Austin's direct (and rather hilarious) appeal to them for Book of Mormon origins. I agree with a lot of your paragraph here--of course we need to proceed in the face of uncertainty. This is one thing I say when people raise solipsistic arguments: "we have no choice BUT to act as if we share a reality but the people around us." Same idea. I also believe our consequences have lasting decisions. None of that requires a belief in the divine. I spent a few months down this particular rabbit hole after a few exchanges with Don Bradley so I feel pretty confident in my position here, but I don't fault anyone for concluding differently. But of course, those arguments and evidence only get us--at best--to Deism, not Theism.
What complexity--specifically--do you think Joseph couldn't have generated based once we set our expectations according to the evidence we shared in this video? I think you know I'm asking this in good faith because while I hear how complex the Book of Mormon is all the time, I'm unaware of any part the Joseph couldn't have written when we correctly view his background and the timeline.
I'll definitely consider your feedback but I'd also ask that as a listener you understand that this is not a scripted conversation. It would be repetitive and boring for us to say at the beginning of every sentence that our criticism of some apologetic point applies only to Austin. I'll just have to trust that people can interpret the statements made in the context of which they're given: debunking the Light and Truth Letter's terrible arguments. Unless you share his opinion on some point, I would not apply the criticism to yourself. I'm thrilled you're listening and hearing us out and will do my best to keep that in mind by not overreaching in the future.
Your thoughts aren't a nuisance to me--I appreciate them. I have no issue with discussing these things with people who disagree with me, so long as we're both doing so in good faith. You and I have exchanged enough that I know I can expect that of you and I hope I've given you the same impression. While I don't share you opinion of the Church's origins (I have literally said before "there's no baby in the bathwater")--that doesn't mean I don't wish you the best in attempting to realize that vision. Truth is that if the Church moved in that direction to a greater degree, I'm not even sure the origins would matter that much to me. I sincerely doubt the Church will ever move appreciably in that direction, but that's just guessing based on the past.
All to say--I really appreciate you listening. You're certainly not a nuisance and I hope you feel free to reach out to me directly anytime. My email is simply my first and last name--separated by a dot--at the domain owned by Google (I think that'll slip it past the auto-moderator). Please feel free to reach out directly for any further discussion.
@ thanks, Kolby. I appreciate the goodwill. Being that your presentation and these comments are in a public space, I want to be supportive where we agree on bathwater and respectfully disagree as I feel moved to do so. I certainly keep context in mind, but that goes both ways-your analysis of this particular work isn’t done in a vacuum, it’s part of a greater conversation in which you have taken a notable (and not rando) role. It’s not about anyone’s feelings or ego-like you said, it’s important to get the facts and logic right.
As for the complexities I mentioned, it’s not the kind of thing that I would put forth as objective evidence, and so I haven’t compiled it. They’re just things I notice. A couple types/examples that come to mind:
Details of historical significance: there’s a point at which there’s overlap between High Priest and Chief Judge, where in the course of their dealing with dissonance you can see the internal struggle between admonition and compulsion. I’m sorry I can’t find the reference; as I said, I haven’t compiled those. Why it matters: there’s often a difference in the nature of contrived details injected into a composed narrative and residual details from journaling.
Details of doctrinal significance: in the story of the brother of Jared and the 16 stones we see the Lord walk him through the process of identifying a problem and coming up with a solution, where a Bible fan-fiction approach probably would’ve merely cut to the miraculous appearance of the hand of God. This one’s doubly interesting in that many historical elements of the Book of Ether are just bananas, but the doctrinal complexity is not what I would expect from JS’s era.
A couple other items, Kolby, that are equally subjective: I agree that JS’s approach ignorance is way overblown. But writing a cohesive narrative is hard, even for educated authors with modern word processing. I have about 400 pages down on a historical fiction work, and I have stacks upon stacks of notes which so have to reference frequently. I’m very aware that the translation accounts must be taken with a grain of salt, but the facts as I see them support either a linear recording or a conspiracy to create the BOM whose lasting is, itself, highly implausible.
Also the length of the BOM is implausible for the purpose of gain. Much like the Bible, there’s a lot of fluff and redundancy. Given the high cost of publishing it’s unlikely that a composition would’ve gone significantly longer than what was needed to be convincing, as there were real economic pressures at play.
Of course, none of this proves anything. But for the amount of times I’ve heard critics invoke Occam’s Razor-you guys did so once in this episode-there are implausible situations on both sides of the debate.
@@aBrewster29 I have no idea what the first paragraph is supposed to mean. What, exactly, are you saying? Because I’ve spoken out on other podcasts-what? There’s no conclusion to the thought that I’m seeing. I agree entirely it’s about getting the facts right-I have zero desire to land any blow against the Church that isn’t earned.
Thanks for sharing the examples. That kind of stuff doesn’t work for me because it’s entirely premised off of thinking how (or why) you personally think Joseph should have told a story if it were false. Given the significance of the claims, that is never going to be sufficient evidence for me. I acknowledge some other people will draw that line differently, which is their right, of course. Then the discussion would have to focus on whether that criterion could also invalidate the claimed holy book of other faiths.
In case it isn’t clear, I do think the Book of Mormon is the most significant evidence for the Church. By talking about how Joseph’s education has been downplayed isn’t the same as saying it was easy. But the apologist’s claims we were responding to is that the non-supernatural claims are basically impossible. I think anyone who views the real record knows that simply isn’t the case.
Ultimately though, there are just way too many problems with the Book of Mormon that tell me-like the fraudulent certificate-that it can’t be what it claims to be. So while I do still legitimately wonder how it came to pass, I feel pretty certain it isn’t historical. If it isn’t historical, it isn’t true in any sense that is meaningful to me personally. Again, I’m very open about this whenever I talk about truth.
You’re right that there are facts or evidence that go both ways. I’ll admit your two examples are valid. But then please explain to me why the Book of Mormon builds sinking treasure into the narrative (unless you believe sinking treasure is a reality)? And unless we believe in sinking treasure, we need to be aware of Joseph’s history as a money digger and folk-magic practitioner. And the only way, it seems to me, to be a believer when acknowledging those facts is to start going loose with things Joseph claimed. In other words, any theory where the Book of Mormon is true means it inexplicably leads people to do good or because it hooks into some obscure “meta-truth” or something, I just have zero interest in that discussion. Not because I’m not interested in the topic, but when we arrive at a place of entirely subjective judgment-we’re just doing the equivalent of arguing over which color is best.
So while, you’re right, there are arguments that go both ways-I’ll praise one from Austin this week as the best so far, a legitimate hit-they’re nowhere near equal in gravity. And that’s before you consider that I do believe extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And for me, the ultimate claim of Mormonism is that there’s a God that exists that wants to talk to me because he loves me. I was taught from a very young age that God would answer me if I ask. And I’ve begged and pleaded. You know I have studied this material. Do you believe I am lying about being unable to find God in this evidence? And if the answer is no, which I hope it is, why would any God that even vaguely resemble the one we were taught to believe in as a Father would allow this to be the evidence upon which we should believe in him?
Why is the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Doctrine and Covenants replete with a God of miracles-the God Moroni taught about-never seen in real life? I’ve listened to General Authorities cry about bringing a gnat back to life. You know my grandfather lost his Bishop father in a car accident coming back from the temple on Christmas Eve that left his mother paralyzed? I struggle to see that raising a gnat is high on the list of priorities. The God of mysterious ways conveniently stopped doing anything miraculous the moment we could document history.
I’m sorry, but I can no longer believe in the God of the Book of Mormon-because there’s no mapping of those claims to reality. Not sufficient historically or theologically. Why doesn’t the same God that silenced Korihor silence someone like me, today?
If we’re divorced from evidence in the realm of faith? Fine. I’ve rejected the word as a valid thing to believe means anything substantive at all-but I get that, at least. Even Paul admitted the things of God are foolishness, right? I don’t mean that as an insult. If we’re down to the bedrock questions, the questions of Deism, a version of me agrees with you. But that’s not what we’re talking about.
I mean this kindly and with all respect, but look at your own statement and see the difference in gravity. You don’t believe it’s plausible Joseph Smith would have wrote the narrative a certain way. So because of that uncertainty, you believe in some very epistemically demanding supernatural claims? That’s like saying because we don’t know how you’re going to get home tomorrow from work, it’s just as reasonable to believe you’ll arrive via helicopter as it is automobile. Does the Book of Mormon make me legitimately scratch my head? Yup. Does that mean I start wondering if magic stones and sinking treasures are real? Not really, no.
why did BYU make view of the Hebrews available for free? because they didn't want them to get it from the Tanners ! 😂
there are so many stupid arguments in that letter it's unbelievable
the legal beagles ! ☺️
more the "lies and booooo"-letter
What about Joseph Smith having an eidetic memory?
I think of automatic writing like Patience Worth. 😮
One correction, animals are not mentioned in the BOM in relation to warfare.
Did we claim they were? I relistened to that section and I’m not seeing where we said that, we simply mentioned chariots and animal husbandry.
Your work is mentioned in the next chapter. I’ve been really, really trying to figure out your methodology and I honestly cannot. Beyond your book and the videos you’ve done with FAIR, is there a good way for me to wrap my head around your methodology for your translation of the “Caractors” document?
@@KolbyReddish I was referring to the comment after about 1:01:24, seemed to say that animals were involved in various things, including warfare. Maybe I misheard it. Not really a big deal, just thought I would mention it, you seem to indicate that you are wanting to be accurate, which I think is good, I try to do the same. I didn't know that I was mentioned in the Light and Truth letter tbh. I just looked at it and I guess there is some passing reference to some of my work. I am not aware of any videos related to my work done by FAIR, I don't have any affiliation with that organization (or really any apologetic organization tbh) and have never presented anything at any of their conferences (I actually have only gone to a couple of their conference, most of their conference topics don't really interest me all that much tbh). I have had to deal with the Interpreter Foundation as I have donated money to Royal Skousen's Original Text project, and that is the pathway he has chosen for donations to get to his project. I do the occasional podcast when asked and if I happen to feel like it, but don't have any ties to any of therm. As far as methodology, of course hard to condense a 400 page book into a comment. Since most of the document consists of Egyptian hieratic with a bit of demotic, I just used the standard translation methodology used in the standard translation of hieratic and demotic. For hieratic, the glyphs are identified using Möller's Hieratische Paläographie, with a direct cut and paste from Möller listing the corresponding Möller number. Using the standard index by Vervloesem I identified (and showed) the corresponding Gardiner Number glyph (aka monumental Egyptian). The Egyptian dictionaries are based on the monumental Egyptian, there are no dictionaries constructed for the hieratic, that is why one has to go through the process just described. Standard Egyptian dictionaries were used, primarily those based on Faulkner which are formatted better than Faulkner which make them easier to search which saves time (ie Dickson, Vygus). There was a very little use of Budge as some Egyptologists are a bit critical of his dictionary. When I did use it I usually supported it by other references. As far as demotic, fortunately it is bit easier to translated than hieratic in the sense that the Chicago Demotic Dictionary does have the glyphs represented with the actual definition and Egyptian phonetic word alongside of it, although it is heavily based on Erichsen's Demotisches Glossar and relies on references to it, so one has to consult Erichsen for many of the glyphs. Anyway, pretty standard translation methodology, anyone who translates hieratic or demotic is familiar with the method used to translate these languages. Some have complained a bit that I didn't just present the final translation up front instead of until Chapter 11, as I chose to handle the numbers, calendrical markers, names, and directional glyphs each as their own group. Any translation of numbers and number systems has to be addressed separately as a unit as it involves things like evaluating numeric notation and the rules that apply to the changes in historical number systems through time. I chose to deal with the names separately mostly because the names are pretty much all calques (which the BOM hints at) which is not unexpected given the tendency for metonymic names in Biblical hebrew and the calques are also seen between Mesoamerican languages as opposed to phonetic transliterated borrowings, so one has to understand that the Egyptian is going to represent the meaning of the name and not necessarily the phonetic elements, although some do as well. The calendar markers were handled separately because, although they do have Egyptian origins for the glyphs, the chronological system matches the Mesoamerican system (ISIG, DNIG, ADI, PDI and Period Ending Glyphs). Most of the Caractors Document calendrical marker glyphs are also found loaned into and directly correlate with the corresponding Maya calendrical marker glyphs, either as a direct glyph form or as an infix glyph. Because of this, it was useful to discuss these as a separate chapter. Anyway, there were obviously more specific methods used for a few of the characters as some were combination or overlapping glyphs. That's why it took 400 pages. Anyway, that is the Cliff's note version. I don't know if you have read the last updated book or not. It is free to download on my website, just do a web search for bmslr it should be the first thing to pop up. Based on your comment, I might be useful for me to write up a more layman's version of the methodology, this book, as are all of my books, written to academic standards, which sometimes makes them perhaps more difficult to understand for the layman. I am currently working on a couple other projects so will probably have to delay that for a while. Perhaps my book ended up for some a bit like the tax code I suppose, even lawyers and accountants have difficulty divining the IRS methodologies (if they actually have any LOL), however, most of the comments I have received back have indicated that if they spent the time reading the whole book they understood the methodology used.
@@jerrygrover8992 oh, we definitely do-that’s why I went and checked.
That’s definitely odd, FAIR has a video of you presenting at a conference up right now from about seven years ago (I re-searched it just to make sure I didn’t remember incorrectly).
I get you’re trying to condense a lot of work into a comment but I’m not sure it made things any clearer for me. Do you remember any podcasts you’ve done that really dumb it down for a lawyer?
@@KolbyReddish As I recall I have only done one limited conference presentation (on the numbers) on the topic at a BMAF conference and based on the date you have indicated it is probably that one. FAIR must have linked to it? Idn. I did another presentation long ago on the geology of the BOM, and one on Ziff and the metallurgy of the plates. Those are the only presentations I think I have done and only because I was asked. As far as podcasts the few I have done I don’t think would give you what you are asking for. Maybe something I could do in the future, but tbh, most podcasts (I expect yours is the same) are interested in views or donations so to some extent are entertainment playing generally to the targeted audience. The nature of this material is not really entertaining tbh. I personally don’t really view podcasts as places for serious academic research based on what I have seen. Not condemning them, but as I said they are primarily entertainment with most being monetized with hopes of viewership. A person is really interested in the particulars of this material they should just read the research and can ask me questions through my website. Or if they formally publish somewhere something of academic grade properly cited on the topic I might respond (so far I am unaware of anything). Sorry I don’t have anything online for what you are looking for.
@@jerrygrover8992 gotcha. Thanks for responding.
It took me three tries to watch this because it turns out that along with its other attributes, this is a great soporific.
Indeed that is also a great quality for helping me get back to sleep at night, what's not to like?! ❤
Who knew Trump stole “The Weave” from Joseph Smith.
Kolby Reddish needs to stop messing around and just start his own podcast. Why is he playing hard to get?
I can't stand the use of occham’s razor in the post-mormon community. It is usually misintroduced/explained and approaches a thought stopping cliche in its use.
Was it used incorrectly here?
I agree, it is never used in scientific papers that I have ever seen. Science presents the data. While it is true that in mathematics one often tries to simply equations to make them more workable, in science I have never seen the “all things being equal” scenario presented. Unfortunately it isn’t really post Mormons making this error it is basically a common error made by most non scientists
@@jerrygrover8992Occam’s razor is used all the time in science. It is simply a heuristic based on the principle of parsimony and is used in developing theoretical frameworks in many different areas of scientific inquiry. When attempting to identify the best explanation for a particular phenomenon it is almost always a good idea to try to minimize unnecessary assumptions that are more likely to distract us from the actual best explanation.
@@clinthilton1348 Hmm, your comment trigger a plagiarism alert on my computer, looks like you just cut and pasted it off of a Google search AI. Anyway, I can tell you that no self respecting scientist will use Occam's razor when data is available. It originated for use in theology and philosophy as Occam was a theologian. It is not a scientific principle. Considering the scientific method, Occam's razor is definitely not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result. If one submitted a scientific paper relying on Occam's razor without data it would be laughed out of the editorial room. In all my years I have never seen a peer reviewed scientific paper that relied on Occam's razor instead of data. Maybe there is one out there, but it never would have passed any of the peer review that I have been a part of.
@@CommonLaw-UncommonlyExplained I need to rewatch if it was used correctly or not. That isn't as much my point. Rather, it is overused in the post-mormon space, which now approaches a cliche. The razor is about parsimony and explanatory power; yet post-mormon videos often only evoke the parsimony in their explanations. I'm calling for a ditch a cliche, and to be more rigorous. We don't need the razor.
I agree that not all parallels are created equal. I also think the parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book Of Mormon are laughable and incredibly surface level. I think the parallels between Joseph Smith Sr’s Tree of Life dream and Lehi’s are examples of theological poetry and while not mere coincidence are not this glaring problem others make it out to be. I don’t know enough about The Narrative Of Zosimus to have an opinion on any potential parallels but I love how we’re being so dismissive of any of them out of the gate as if we aren’t the ones who have been clinging to every possible book or sermon that was around at the time as potential influences on Joseph Smith regardless of how far fetched they may be. How are we supposed to take these discussions seriously if one side is expecting contradictory ideas to bend the knee to them and are happily picking and choosing which parallels matter and which ones don’t while also claiming to be against these same double standards in apologetic circles?
Thanks!
Great episode
Thanks!