In Mormonism, loyalty is the great virtue, and insubordination the greatest sin. When I was in college, a teacher told me of a class where the professor asked half of his class the same question (independently): Do you believe the United Nations has enough good in it to justify it's existence? Half the class supported the statement about 80%, the other only about 20%. The difference: for the side that supported it, the professor prefaced the question: Do you believe, along with LDS president David O. McKay, that the United Nations..." Appeal to authority is a powerful influencer, and we are in a modern world saturated with "authority worship." Not just in the church either, but through the whole culture. Thus no matter how intelligent or stupid an idea, each hierarchy within the Church steps in line, and mimics the beliefs of those above. Every conference authorities quote authorities who quote authorities, always pointing to the head man. This is the not the logic of seeking truth, it's the logic of adducing LOYALTY. Truth takes a backseat to Loyalty everytime.
Super glad that you are enjoying our podcast... We look forward to providing more content so stay tuned! And feel free to comment what types of topics you like us to cover. Thank you for your support!
Love this conversation! At about the 25 minute mark I was reminded of a quote in the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Like Landon, I'm so damn tired if the "nobody's perfect, you're not perfect either" argument. I do not appreciate being put in the same class of humans as pedophiles, misogynists, racists, homophobes, and maliciously ignorant men who have ZERO basis for the superiority they feel over others.
Agreed Maven! It's like saying well if you had to perform the Atonement how well would it have turned out so you can't question the church because YOU never could have atoned for the sins of all the world so keep your mouth shut!!!
This talk is one big appeal to authority: if the leaders err, that's OK because they have authority. If they contradict themselves, that's OK, because they have authority. If they claim revelation to set a policy and then claim it again to reverse the policy, that's OK, because they have authority. If the leaders have no accountability to the common members, that's OK, because they have authority. It's never right to criticize any actions of the leaders, because you have NO authority. It's never right to oppose any policy or practice espoused by the leaders, but you have NO authority. Those in leadership positions have absolute immunity from opposition, because they have authority. The Roman Catholic Church runs on exactly the same principle, and has from it's foundation is about 300 AD.
Yep. It's an "authority cult" top to bottom. And its self-proclaimed authority is basically a Mount Everest sized monument to the "begging the question" logical fallacy. Everything (tithing, dress codes, worship protocols, bans on coffee and tea, temple rituals, etc.) flows from the premise that a small collection of blowhards in SLC (most or all of whom owe their positions to nepotism and cronyism) have some magical super authority from an invisible supreme being. Most believers have a hard time ever even slightly examining that fundamental premise. Even if it were accepted, for the sake of argument, that some glow-in-the-dark figures identifying themselves as certain Bible celebrities, gave "authority" to Joseph Smith in the form of "priesthoods" to act as representative and spokesman for the invisible supreme being, you'd think that some Mormons might at least question whether that authority could be passed on to subsequent generations after the second "prophet" and top leader guy (and the entire generation of priesthood leaders who sustained him) got the identity of the invisible supreme being wrong...literally proving that the top Mormon leader did not know god from Adam.
Yes when RFM and I were talking about this I misunderstood and thought he told me he had Kyle on. Instead it was RFM’s Stake President. Thanks for correcting me!
I love that Rebecca spoke about the Church being too based on emotion and spiritual experiences and witnesses. When I speak about never being sure if I have ever felt the "Spirit" and not having ever got a spiritual witness to confirming the Church's "Truthness", people just say well you have to work harder or you have to pray more. Like they don't know how much time I have spent doing that. It seems to me that the emphasis on these things have made a big taboo that everyone expects everyone to feel this way or have these experiences, when from my experiences many people have not, but they just don't dare talk about it. Thank you for that inside Rebecca. It really put my own experiences into perspective
You're so welcome! We are glad this is giving you an helpful insights that help you.. Please let us know what other topics you would like us to talk about. Thank you for listening!
Yes. As soon as they try to move people into the space of relying on emotion, feelings and trusting authority figures (of course associating these ordinary human experiences with fancy religious concepts like "the Holy Ghost" or "being in tune with the spirit" or "promptings"), they're in exactly the same epistemological space as all other cults and hoaxes. There's no reasonable way to distinguish them from each other. And they only response they can have when pointing that out is to say, in effect, "well, it seems that way, but we're actually right and all those other groups are wrong".
“Appealing”, “appealing “! Like I wanted the church not to be true! After 27 years in the church, I was not looking for the information or truths appealing to me. It caused me so much heartache, so many tears, confusion… ! The truth is hard and not, in my case and other people’s cases on finding out the hard truth about the church, was devastating for many reasons. A lot people deciding to look for info on the church is not just looking for it to be “appealing”! The word and mind games they give us is horrible and manipulative! So glad I am out! Also, there is a difference in making a mistake and knowingly leading people astray in order to reap the benefits of their time, money and resources.
Well, in Mormonism, testimonies are based on compartmentalization. If an argument or assertion feels good in situation X, run with it. If it is manifestly inconsistent with another argument or assertion that feels good in situation Y, forget about it. A good Mormon's testimony consists of telling themselves things that feel good in situation X, another set of things that make them feel good in situation Y (that are wildly inconsistent with what they believe about situation X)...and another set of things that make them feel good in situation Z (that are wildly inconsistent with everything that they believe about situations X and Y). If asked why the believe, they will tell you it's because they know it's all true because of X, Y and Z...and then they'll change the subject if you want to discuss details.
This guy speaks from both sides of his mouth. He must not have been a successful lawyer because his arguments have no logical foundation. Students with critical thinking will see through this facade. It's no wonder this generation is leaving en masse.
Prophets aren't perfect and can lead people astray. Also, the 4th fundamental of following the prophet: Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. 🤷♂
When I was an 18-year-old BYU student there was no internet. DOM was the president of the church. I would have thought, "What the heck is this guy talking about?!" His talk would be planting doubts that I had no context for. If I were that same student today I would think the same thing, and when I left I would have gotten on google at my first opportunity. I can't think of a better way to plant doubts than this crazy talk.
You two make a great team - articulate, intelligent, and entertaining. Thank you for this quick and excellent commentary. And, yes. I did go to the Stake Farm A LOT! 😂😂😂
And members paid for the privilege to do so, as that corporation has now amassed 32 Billion + to help Jesus when He returns. Jesus didn't need that when He fed all with the loaves and fishes.
We're so glad you enjoyed our episode, it was really interesting to research it and we're glad that you found it useful. We're glad you can relate to the church welfare farm, it was quite the experience that is hard to describe to people that didn't have to do it growing up. Ha ha!
@@Zodiacalesotericmatrix👍 I don't doubt it. I was casually talking to a friend (lds) and mentioned how I have always thought the stock market is like a big casino. She agreed-and said "her religion" doesn't believe in gambling, as I was thinking of the stocks her "religion" invests in. 🙄
Oh, brother! “Choose“ to believe an inaccurate version of church history, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. This is not only ridiculous. It is wrong and bad for the human soul. Is the word idolatry applicable to the way the church leaders view the church. Has it become their God?
12:32 THAT is the main problem. I don't place my faith and trust in any "church". God never said to trust in anything other than Him. BELIEVE GOD! The KJV words, context and languages are explained in Strong's Concordance, the Blue Bible, and the Linear Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls match what is written in the Old Testament. The Bereans checked every word Jesus taught to make sure it lined up with scripture. NOT what Joe rewrote. Nowhere did God tell us to believe in a church/corporation. Other than Jesus- who said He only says what His father tells Him-NOWHERE are we told to trust in a man. I'm continually amazed that these liars don't burst into flames/be smited. Never fear-I pray for that daily. Imprecatory prayers are very powerful. Just remember that you are praying against the spirit working through the human.
No where has God ever said anything. At best the Bible (All Holy Books) is hearsay. Hearsay is unreliable, courts don't allow it, and I refuse to make life decisions based on it. No one knows what Jesus said, no one knows the will of God assuming there is a God, and ironically you are trusting men when you believe in and follow the scriptures.
To ignore the issues with the LDS Church, its history and its leaders, is to be a Christian who isn't a member of the Mormon church.... What advantage can anyone gain being in the Mormon church, where "prophets" can be wrong about actual doctrines, and be wrong when they claim to speak in the name of God? Knowing that doctrinal declarations must be believed and followed when they are issued by prophets, but also knowing that later generations can (and have) renounce those very doctrines and excommunicate anyone who continues to follow them, why would anyone want to be a member of such a church? Having prophets who could speak for God was always one of the selling points of Mormonism. And yes, we all recognize that a prophet can be wrong about inconsequential things, such as if BYU will win the next game... But to be wrong about doctrine, when the very reason prophets are necessary is to deliver correct doctrine, is not acceptable.
if the mormon church cannot provide answers, then what good is it??? when the missionaries tell you they "have the answers" , then look elsewhere because the mormon church is not into answers. it's that simple.
I've only listened about 1/3 so far, but thanks for sharing his clips. He's a great church historian. I've noticed that following the prophets' true revelation always leads to a sense of surety in the end. Take for example Rod Meldrum looking at what Joseph Smith actually said about things like "the Plains Of The Nephites. " Meldrum theorized that Lehi would have made a trip around the horn of Africa to the southeastern US. A couple years later a nonmember, Philip Beale, sailed a 700 BC replica ship on that exact same route. Major "scholars" at BYU thought Meldrum was crazy, but he trusted revelation over "expertise." Revelation was shortly followed by incredibly strong evidence. Amazing. Thanks for sharing Elder McKay's clips. What he said was great.
The bottom-line/take-away point from McKay's talk: Even when you find out that what you thought was your rock-solid "testimony" turns out to have been based on things that were never true, you should choose to believe anyway because, well, you know...like...uhmm...see, it's like...uh...hmmm...you....Oh! How are you going to earn a gold star sticker on your forehead if you choose not to believe? Right?
Compelling evidence to doubt? Yes The Book of Abraham. Interpretations are changing because the scholarship . Even scholars at BYU like Royal Skousen doubt Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles. "The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription - and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book. see page 39 of this humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf
It constantly amazes me how obviously intelligent Mormon leaders can spout such absurd lies and mumbo jumbo with such apparent conviction in their determined climb up the corporate ladder of Mormonism. How do you spell Kiss Ass?
Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought the whole concept of the "used to be" Mormon, and now rebranded as "LDS" church was that they guy in charge, the President of the church is supposedely a "Prophet". A messenger of God Himself. And God doesn't make mistakes or errors. So this begs the question, is Russel M. Nelson a Prophet? Or a prophet in name only? I'll wait.
I’ve been wanting to point out for a while how interesting it is that on this side of faith content providers don’t think for a second before sharing any and all material that is used to confront their positions. There is a movement amongst LDS podcasters to not even mention the names of content providers who don’t support the church let alone provide a link to their work. Good stuff and very telling.
It’s fascinating to me that I always find an untrue assertion like this-for example, all the grammatical changes made by Joseph Smith himself in the Book of Mormon. The anti guy asserted-“ if the Book of Mormon was indeed translated by the gift and power of God, then he (Joseph Smith) had no right to tamper with it!” That assertion is untrue. People, everything must be known by knowing the whole story, not just bits and pieces of it. That whole perspective is necessary. If there is any missing information, it is easy to come up with a logical and completely reasonable sounding assertion that is simply NOT true. And this is the rabbit hole that these bloggers and “Mormon stories” John Dehlin go down. This has been the case with all of this since I started studying anti-Mormon rhetoric 40 years ago. The gospel is true. Joseph Smith saw what he saw. No sophistry by people trying to overturn faith in this work will destroy it-but many will get lost in the “mists”.
Sounds like you're coping by simply repeating assertions (like mantras) that are not consistent with known facts and logic. "The gospel is true". (That's a meaningless statement. Is polygamy part of the "gospel"? Is the prohibition against drinking green tea part of the "gospel"? Is preventing non-member parents from participating in the temple wedding ceremony of their children part of the "gospel"? "Joseph Smith saw what he saw". Another meaningless statement. Everyone sees what they see and don't see what they don't see. So what? The problem is that Joseph Smith made up stories about "what he saw" and his stories were not consistent with each other and even contradicted each other. There's not even any reason to believe any of the stories were true. They don't even sound original, but rather sound like stories other preachers and ministers at that time would tell about how they were "called to the ministry".
12:14 "Don't pollute your testimony with false philosophies of unbelieving men and women." What have false philosophies got to do with anything? What if someone has a legitimate question about an issue in church history? He's obscuring and complicating things.
Characterizing criticisms as "false philosophies" without offering a scintilla of proof that they are false is a classic begging-the-question fallacy. McKay's entire talk consists of a string of bald assertions, unproven premises and unsupported assumptions, discussed using undefined terms. The Church's prophet can't lead the church astray, but apparently can make fundamental mistakes...so don't worry about the mistakes because even if the "prophet" teaches you to worship as your "ONLY" god a being whom subsequent "prophets" declare is "NOT GOD"...nobody was led astray per se...it was just, you know, one of those mistakes that everybody makes. (Of course McKay studiously avoided discussing any specific examples of such "mistakes" because to do so would have instantly revealed the emptiness of his rhetoric.)
Well, there have to be choices. And the evidence must support all the choices and also put all the choices in doubt. Because god wanted you to make choices in circumstances where the correct choice is not clear because god is that way or some people think that god is that way, but is god really that way? That's a choice right there. The only thing that a General Authority knows for sure is that the General Authority always makes the correct choice, even when they don't make the correct choice, in which case, you should choose to believe despite the compelling evidence that indicates that the choice was wrong...and that's how you know the choice could only have been that choice. So don't doubt and be sure to pay your tithing and stay on the covenant path. I really can't understand why Mormonism is not growing by leaps and bounds. The gospel is so plain and precious.
33:33 I think the underlying argument that's trying to be made here is, it doesn't take a man making such major and immoral blunders as Joseph Smith did in order for an imperfect man to restore God's church. Usually when someone says, "nobody's perfect", it's in the context of the person doing their utmost to live or do the best they can, not that it's to be used as an excuse for criminal behavior. edit: And also to illustrate the argument that a person's character needs to be taken into account before making a personal investment into them and their activity, just look at some of the people who ran major crypto projects and exchanges who's businesses collapsed last year! Sam Bankman Fried was an absolute menace with billions of dollars of people's money. So how harder of a defense is it for the church for them to defend their founder was a known and convicted con man at the time!? People got caught up in the hype at the time, made foolish decisions with their life and ended up getting moved around the country avoiding persecution, getting into skirmishes, etc. And Sam Bankman Fried even posed himself as a somewhat relatable guy to the average American who just sort of stumbled upon a major business venture and seemed trustworthy because of his relatable demeanor. Whereas Joseph Smith was pretty openly conceited about his position in life.
The whole talk was a big bundle anti-intellectual teachings. Once people realize that the LDS methodology for conversion is essentially self indoctrination, all the dialogue used in speaking about the methodology in the church falls into place. The "read and pray" model for gaining knowledge of the church's truth claims only serves to manufacture believers out of skeptics. It does not lead to knowledge. And it creates believers in the most unprincipled way one could imagine. It actively encourages a person to lead with their emotions, to lead with their bias. Alma 32: 27, as Kyle McKay even quoted, says, "even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you". This is an active and explicit endorsement of committing one's self to their bias and suppressing their skepticism. This is not a methodology for gaining knowledge, it's a methodology for literally manufacturing believers out of skeptics. You only become someone who _believes_ you have knowledge, and that it's not possible for you to be wrong.
It's basically the church's version of "Heads, we win! Tails, you lose!" The testimony-gaining formula that they teach is 100% rigged into a no-lose proposition for the church. If you get good feelings about what they want you to believe, that's a sign from God and the Holy Ghost. If you get bad feelings about what they want you to believe, that's a sign that you're "not in tune" with God and the Holy Ghost and may be under the influence of the Devil. If you get no feelings, you need to work harder because there really is only one correct answer and that's the answer the church wants you to get. It's also like those political situations where the elites keep forcing referendum after referendum on the same issue until the voters finally accept the decision that the elites wanted all along...and after that no more referendums are ever needed...for some reason.
Speaking of being someone to cause someone to doubt, tell you what “brother” you have done a perfect job of confirming a bunch of my doubts. 😂what a snake oil salesman!
The notion Prophets are incapable to speaking anything but the will of God in their calling comes from Deuteronomy 18:20 where it says God won't allow His Prophet to speak anything in the name of God which God hasn't commanded; and if he does, that prophet will die.
38:11 This point needs to be shouted from the rooftops. If there's anything the Church does that frustrates me a lot, it's the way it quietly distances itself from things it once stood for. The members become confused aiding the contention and strife between one another. They rarely disavow anything. When they do eventually disavow something they call it a theory. If there was a theory (like evolution in the 1960s and 70s) they would try to squash it asap. They never called the reasons for the doctrine that restricted the priesthood, the temple, and exaltation for people of color a theory until 2013 when they published the Race and the Priesthood essay on their own website.
My brothers and sisters, I would like to bear my testimony of the divinity of this great work. You say the gospel and the truth claims of Mormonism make no sense? That is the greatest evidence of their truth. God wants you to believe absurd lies and nonsense to prove your love of Him. If Mormonism made sense, anybody could believe but it takes a special kind of person to believe the unbelievable. I say these things....
Prophets are men. Men make mistakes. Therefore prophets make mistakes. Believe in Christ. Everything else prophets say doesn't matter. Question: how then are Mormons to distinguish when a prophet is teaching or speaking accurately or as a flawed human or is it indistinguishable? It's said that the current Mormon prophet's teachings are the only ones that matter and to ignore previous teachings of prophets, when they were wrong or replaced. Does the new/current prophet-President ever come in with a platform which states which past prophet teachings are now out and which are still in? If not, at least in the minds of followers, are not past prophet's words current until a more recent prophet overrides them, like Woodruff overriding Smith's polygamy? Does Nelson need to restate Woodruff's polygamy stance today to insure it's the latest position, or does the past President's position still stand on it's own? How can i know if Woodruff's teaching is flawed today? ...i only use polygamy as an example because it's a big and obvious "correction" that seems to still stand without recent prophets needing to reiterate it. What about the less obvious teachings that are uncorrected or only quietly corrected? It seems Mr McKay has shined a light on a logical flaw, in the prophetic nature of the Mormon Church, with his position that the Church's history itself points out how flawed and wrong it's prophets have been over time. It could be considered a logistical flaw in president-apostle succession, if they wanted to instead track a list of all the core doctrinal teachings and keep it current with each President and conference. Everything else said by prophets could then be considered "aspirational" and "inspirational" teachings only. Categorization may help members understand current from historical positions and give them reference to study it "correctly" Rather than blame them when they couldn't find it in all 150+ years of broad history and teachings, especially if they have twice annual prophetic teaching conferences for most of that time.
The idea that religious faith should trump evidence and reason is intellectually dishonest gibberish. To me, a person of faith is someone who is willing to believe or pretend to believe absurd lies and nonsense without anything even approaching half decent evidence. But, that is the only way a person with half a brain can believe.
I just want to say that I am a fan of your show, but one of your arguments in this episode didn't quite sit right with me: I don't understand why you both are claiming that the "opposition in all things" argument is manipulative. It seems to me that it is the most intellectually honest and non-manipulative argument that can be made for religious faith. It makes me sad that you would accuse someone of being manipulative when all they are trying to do is come up with a justification for their faith that pro-actively respects the decisions of those who have reached different conclusions about the truth (or lack thereof) of Mormonism. You both seem to adopt a non-Mormon soteriology as to why it would be manipulative for God to let us loose on Earth without better evidence for his existence. If all chances for salvation ended at death, then yes it would be manipulative for God to put forth compelling evidence against religious claims. But as you are both well aware, Mormonism does not teach that salvation attempts end at death. You both know that most Mormons reject the idea that you will "burn in hell forever" for not believing during this life. It is Mormon/LDS doctrine that you can only go to Outer Darkness if you literally see Jesus Christ and then reject him. So I am very confused as to why you are misrepresenting Mormon doctrine to make your point here. The historian is not saying you will go to hell for choosing differently from him. Rather, he is respecting the fact that compelling information exists to make you choose the way you have chosen. It is a very agency-respecting argument for him to make, especially in light of the LDS belief that one can choose to believe after death.
We are glad you are a fan. Our reason for stating that his argument claiming that opposition is manipulative is because the opposition that he claims god allows was manipulated by the church through the historian’s office. As an example, Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the First Vision account and then the church teaching a different version for years and now claiming that members finding out this information is really opposition from Satan which God allows to test members faith. Then to state that if you can’t get past these facts and believe in Christ’s church after we manipulated the evidence you can’t be saved (which is the Mormon definition of hell not being able to progress). Bottom line our point is you can’t come from the organization that manipulated the evidence, give a speech that says you need to ingnore the fact that the evidence was manipulated, and then say Satan allowed the evidence to be manipulated to test you and we were just fulfilling god’s plan by lying to you.
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy... This McKay "historian" should be ashamed of himself... O wait... He should have had the 2nd anointing... Oh well...
Yeah, it was like somebody asked him how many logical fallacies he wanted in his talk and he said "all of them". Circular reasoning, begging the question, juxtaposing two terms ("astray" and "mistake") that in ordinary contexts may be regarded as synonymous, then pretending to distinguish them without actually mentioning any distinction.... The "prophet can never lead the church astray" quote is classic Mormon non-think. When a TBM quotes that to me, I ask them who said it. Answer: "The Prophet". Question: "How do you know he wasn't leading the church astray when he said that?" Answer: "Because the prophet can never lead the church astray." Question: "Who said that?" Eventually, they catch on to the circularity.
The evidence that evwryone including apostles have sinned and done embarrasing or even hoorendous things exists. Dont let it get in the wyay of ur faith.
Amazingly arrogant and contentious, almost pounded the podium. How can belief and faith be placed in a doctrine that is no longer the original restored doctrine? IGNORE THE AWFUL TRUTH BEHIND THE CURTAIN. IGNORE THE AWFUL WANT BEHIND THE CURTAIN. IGNORANCE & WANT BEWARE THEM BOTH!
A quote attributed to Carl Sandburg: "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the law and facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Seems that the leaders are in the final stages. There is no doctrinal logic left to resort to (so the "law" is against them and their self-proclaimed authority). There are no valid faith-promoting stories left to resort to and no fake ones that can't be debunked immediately (so the "facts" are against them). All that is left to them is to raise their voices and pound the podium.
When you seek answers from the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible, God can't help you because you have turned your back on Him. Therefore this leaves the door open for Satan (II Corinthians 11:14-15) to step into your life with a false christ or prophet showing you signs and wonders to lead you away from the real Jesus of the Bible who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity. God Himself warns us about this in MATTHEW 24:23-24 "Then if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Christ! or There! do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect..." Mormons teach and believe that their jesus is the brother of Satan, which contradicts what God says in His Bible that Jesus is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity. So Mormons, which Jesus do you believe in? A. Your jesus of the Book of Mormon, who is the brother of Satan. OR B. The Jesus of the Bible, who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity.
@Mormonish Podcast Well, that's a very shallow response. But then again, the Mormon church has no response and no Biblical or academic evidence for Mormonism.
I think you misunderstand our podcast. We have left the Mormon church and no longer subscribe to Mormon theology, evangelical theology, or any other religious theology. We seek truth not from religion but from reliable, provable sources!
Love your podcast. I have subscribed and will be listening and watching just like I have Mormon Stories for years. But there is one thing on which I wish we call could get on the same page, and that is to stop using the word pedophilia in regard to J. Smith's underage brides. Yes, they were underage, but no they very likely would NOT have been of interest to a pedophile. Puberty may have come later then, on average, but a 14.5-year-old girl was very likely post-pubescent, even in 1840. Lindsey Hansen Park (Year of Polygamy) made this same point on Mormon Stories some years ago. A pedophile is attracted to and seeks little kids, meaning for a girl, no boobs and no pubes. Four, not fourteen. This insistence on calling Joe a pedo makes us look bad because we are misrepresenting the facts for effect. Joseph Smith provided far more than enough rope for the world to hang him on, we don't need to sensationalize. Misrepresenting the facts is the very essence of what Mormon apologetics is, and we owe it to ourselves and anyone watching/listening to make every effort to avoid doing the same.
Actually in 1831 Joseph approached 12 year old Mary Elizabeth Rawlings and in a private conversation told her he had had a great vision concerning her. He said she was the first woman god commanded him to take as a plural wife and said a sword bearing angel had threatened to kill him if it didn’t come to pass. He made several attempts to convince her to marry him and finally married her a decade later. “Letter from Mary Elizabeth Rawlings Lightner to Emmaline B Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives”. So his first advance to secure a plural wife that we know of was a twelve year old girl. This is why many refer to him by this term.
@@mormonishpodcast1036 Hmm, I was thinking that when he said that to her he was specifically talking about it happening sometime in the future, not that he wanted her to marry him right then. Guess I'll need to go back and refresh on that. Thanks.
Either the Book Of Mormon comes from God or it comes from the Deivil himself How can a bitter tree produce good friut ? I have a idea how bout all you exmo as you like to call yourself start your own church 😂
Church is Money and Money is Truth !
In Mormonism, loyalty is the great virtue, and insubordination the greatest sin. When I was in college, a teacher told me of a class where the professor asked half of his class the same question (independently): Do you believe the United Nations has enough good in it to justify it's existence? Half the class supported the statement about 80%, the other only about 20%. The difference: for the side that supported it, the professor prefaced the question: Do you believe, along with LDS president David O. McKay, that the United Nations..." Appeal to authority is a powerful influencer, and we are in a modern world saturated with "authority worship." Not just in the church either, but through the whole culture. Thus no matter how intelligent or stupid an idea, each hierarchy within the Church steps in line, and mimics the beliefs of those above. Every conference authorities quote authorities who quote authorities, always pointing to the head man. This is the not the logic of seeking truth, it's the logic of adducing LOYALTY. Truth takes a backseat to Loyalty everytime.
Great insight!
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m loving this podcast. Mormonish is now among my favorites to stay informed.
Super glad that you are enjoying our podcast... We look forward to providing more content so stay tuned! And feel free to comment what types of topics you like us to cover. Thank you for your support!
Love this conversation!
At about the 25 minute mark I was reminded of a quote in the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Rebecca loves Ayn Rand!
This is my new favorite podcast that deals with critically analyzing Mormonism
Thank you very much! We would love to hear what kind of topics our viewers would like to see covered on the podcasts! Thanks again!
Mine too!
Like Landon, I'm so damn tired if the "nobody's perfect, you're not perfect either" argument.
I do not appreciate being put in the same class of humans as pedophiles, misogynists, racists, homophobes, and maliciously ignorant men who have ZERO basis for the superiority they feel over others.
Agreed Maven! It's like saying well if you had to perform the Atonement how well would it have turned out so you can't question the church because YOU never could have atoned for the sins of all the world so keep your mouth shut!!!
You forgot misandrists, solipsists, mendacitrists, and sexists.
@@whenpigsfly3271 thanks! them too!
McKay seems to think that a confident delivery can somehow make nonsense sound believable.
This talk is one big appeal to authority: if the leaders err, that's OK because they have authority. If they contradict themselves, that's OK, because they have authority. If they claim revelation to set a policy and then claim it again to reverse the policy, that's OK, because they have authority. If the leaders have no accountability to the common members, that's OK, because they have authority. It's never right to criticize any actions of the leaders, because you have NO authority. It's never right to oppose any policy or practice espoused by the leaders, but you have NO authority. Those in leadership positions have absolute immunity from opposition, because they have authority. The Roman Catholic Church runs on exactly the same principle, and has from it's foundation is about 300 AD.
Yep. It's an "authority cult" top to bottom. And its self-proclaimed authority is basically a Mount Everest sized monument to the "begging the question" logical fallacy. Everything (tithing, dress codes, worship protocols, bans on coffee and tea, temple rituals, etc.) flows from the premise that a small collection of blowhards in SLC (most or all of whom owe their positions to nepotism and cronyism) have some magical super authority from an invisible supreme being. Most believers have a hard time ever even slightly examining that fundamental premise. Even if it were accepted, for the sake of argument, that some glow-in-the-dark figures identifying themselves as certain Bible celebrities, gave "authority" to Joseph Smith in the form of "priesthoods" to act as representative and spokesman for the invisible supreme being, you'd think that some Mormons might at least question whether that authority could be passed on to subsequent generations after the second "prophet" and top leader guy (and the entire generation of priesthood leaders who sustained him) got the identity of the invisible supreme being wrong...literally proving that the top Mormon leader did not know god from Adam.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU MUST RUN AWAY FROM THE MORMON HORSE SHIT WHENEVER AND WHERE EVER YOU HEAR IT!!!!!
Just a point of clarification, McKay wasn't on Mormonism Live but RFM did speak about him.
Yes when RFM and I were talking about this I misunderstood and thought he told me he had Kyle on. Instead it was RFM’s Stake President. Thanks for correcting me!
Thank you for your video, very educational!
Very helpful. I loved this episode. I like that you encourage your listeners to go listen for themselves too!
Here is the link to the full devotional...
video.byui.edu/media/t/1_emz6rix1
I love that Rebecca spoke about the Church being too based on emotion and spiritual experiences and witnesses. When I speak about never being sure if I have ever felt the "Spirit" and not having ever got a spiritual witness to confirming the Church's "Truthness", people just say well you have to work harder or you have to pray more. Like they don't know how much time I have spent doing that. It seems to me that the emphasis on these things have made a big taboo that everyone expects everyone to feel this way or have these experiences, when from my experiences many people have not, but they just don't dare talk about it. Thank you for that inside Rebecca. It really put my own experiences into perspective
You're so welcome! We are glad this is giving you an helpful insights that help you.. Please let us know what other topics you would like us to talk about. Thank you for listening!
Yes. As soon as they try to move people into the space of relying on emotion, feelings and trusting authority figures (of course associating these ordinary human experiences with fancy religious concepts like "the Holy Ghost" or "being in tune with the spirit" or "promptings"), they're in exactly the same epistemological space as all other cults and hoaxes. There's no reasonable way to distinguish them from each other. And they only response they can have when pointing that out is to say, in effect, "well, it seems that way, but we're actually right and all those other groups are wrong".
“Appealing”, “appealing “! Like I wanted the church not to be true! After 27 years in the church, I was not looking for the information or truths appealing to me. It caused me so much heartache, so many tears, confusion… ! The truth is hard and not, in my case and other people’s cases on finding out the hard truth about the church, was devastating for many reasons. A lot people deciding to look for info on the church is not just looking for it to be “appealing”! The word and mind games they give us is horrible and manipulative! So glad I am out! Also, there is a difference in making a mistake and knowingly leading people astray in order to reap the benefits of their time, money and resources.
"You will never come to know the truths of God by studying the errors of man"
Literally contradicts the first vision narrative.
Well, in Mormonism, testimonies are based on compartmentalization. If an argument or assertion feels good in situation X, run with it. If it is manifestly inconsistent with another argument or assertion that feels good in situation Y, forget about it. A good Mormon's testimony consists of telling themselves things that feel good in situation X, another set of things that make them feel good in situation Y (that are wildly inconsistent with what they believe about situation X)...and another set of things that make them feel good in situation Z (that are wildly inconsistent with everything that they believe about situations X and Y). If asked why the believe, they will tell you it's because they know it's all true because of X, Y and Z...and then they'll change the subject if you want to discuss details.
This guy speaks from both sides of his mouth. He must not have been a successful lawyer because his arguments have no logical foundation. Students with critical thinking will see through this facade. It's no wonder this generation is leaving en masse.
@david. That's why he takes
so long to say nothing.
@david. That's why he takes
so long to say nothing.
Packer said it to D. Michael Quinn's face "the problem with historians is that they always want to tell everything", hence the resort to Zeezroms.
Prophets aren't perfect and can lead people astray.
Also, the 4th fundamental of following the prophet: Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
🤷♂
Yet, so many followers of that church/corporation stay and pay, continuing in the deception.
When I was an 18-year-old BYU student there was no internet. DOM was the president of the church. I would have thought, "What the heck is this guy talking about?!" His talk would be planting doubts that I had no context for.
If I were that same student today I would think the same thing, and when I left I would have gotten on google at my first opportunity. I can't think of a better way to plant doubts than this crazy talk.
When the "mistakes" made by leaders become engrained into the culture and beliefs of the church, that becomes a major problem.
You two make a great team - articulate, intelligent, and entertaining. Thank you for this quick and excellent commentary. And, yes. I did go to the Stake Farm A LOT! 😂😂😂
And members paid for the privilege to do so, as that corporation has now amassed 32 Billion + to help Jesus when He returns. Jesus didn't need that when He fed all with the loaves and fishes.
We're so glad you enjoyed our episode, it was really interesting to research it and we're glad that you found it useful. We're glad you can relate to the church welfare farm, it was quite the experience that is hard to describe to people that didn't have to do it growing up. Ha ha!
@@HzFvr it's actually over 150 billion dollars, but whatever the number is it has a lot of digits. $150,000,000,000
@@Zodiacalesotericmatrix👍 I don't doubt it.
I was casually talking to a friend (lds) and mentioned how I have always thought the stock market is like a big casino. She agreed-and said "her religion" doesn't believe in gambling, as I was thinking of the stocks her "religion" invests in. 🙄
Oh, brother! “Choose“ to believe an inaccurate version of church history, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. This is not only ridiculous. It is wrong and bad for the human soul. Is the word idolatry applicable to the way the church leaders view the church. Has it become their God?
12:32 THAT is the main problem.
I don't place my faith and trust in any "church". God never said to trust in anything other than Him. BELIEVE GOD!
The KJV words, context and languages are explained in Strong's Concordance, the Blue Bible, and the Linear Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls match what is written in the Old Testament. The Bereans checked every word Jesus taught to make sure it lined up with scripture. NOT what Joe rewrote.
Nowhere did God tell us to believe in a church/corporation. Other than Jesus- who said He only says what His father tells Him-NOWHERE are we told to trust in a man.
I'm continually amazed that these liars don't burst into flames/be smited. Never fear-I pray for that daily.
Imprecatory prayers are very powerful. Just remember that you are praying against the spirit working through the human.
No where has God ever said anything. At best the Bible (All Holy Books) is hearsay. Hearsay is unreliable, courts don't allow it, and I refuse to make life decisions based on it. No one knows what Jesus said, no one knows the will of God assuming there is a God, and ironically you are trusting men when you believe in and follow the scriptures.
Amen!
That’s what my math teacher said. Finding the answer is not the solution. You must also show your work and method to how you got the answer.
We love this comment!
👍👍👍Thank you
You are totally welcome!
To ignore the issues with the LDS Church, its history and its leaders, is to be a Christian who isn't a member of the Mormon church.... What advantage can anyone gain being in the Mormon church, where "prophets" can be wrong about actual doctrines, and be wrong when they claim to speak in the name of God? Knowing that doctrinal declarations must be believed and followed when they are issued by prophets, but also knowing that later generations can (and have) renounce those very doctrines and excommunicate anyone who continues to follow them, why would anyone want to be a member of such a church?
Having prophets who could speak for God was always one of the selling points of Mormonism. And yes, we all recognize that a prophet can be wrong about inconsequential things, such as if BYU will win the next game... But to be wrong about doctrine, when the very reason prophets are necessary is to deliver correct doctrine, is not acceptable.
if the mormon church cannot provide answers, then what good is it??? when the missionaries tell you they "have the answers" , then look elsewhere because the mormon church is not into answers. it's that simple.
33:11 He just contradicted "Follow the Prophet" the primary song!
I've only listened about 1/3 so far, but thanks for sharing his clips. He's a great church historian. I've noticed that following the prophets' true revelation always leads to a sense of surety in the end. Take for example Rod Meldrum looking at what Joseph Smith actually said about things like "the Plains Of The Nephites. " Meldrum theorized that Lehi would have made a trip around the horn of Africa to the southeastern US. A couple years later a nonmember, Philip Beale, sailed a 700 BC replica ship on that exact same route. Major "scholars" at BYU thought Meldrum was crazy, but he trusted revelation over "expertise." Revelation was shortly followed by incredibly strong evidence. Amazing. Thanks for sharing Elder McKay's clips. What he said was great.
The bottom-line/take-away point from McKay's talk: Even when you find out that what you thought was your rock-solid "testimony" turns out to have been based on things that were never true, you should choose to believe anyway because, well, you know...like...uhmm...see, it's like...uh...hmmm...you....Oh! How are you going to earn a gold star sticker on your forehead if you choose not to believe? Right?
Compelling evidence to doubt? Yes The Book of Abraham. Interpretations are changing because the scholarship . Even scholars at BYU like Royal Skousen doubt Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles.
"The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a
translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by
inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two
inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified
as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the
accompanying transcription - and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other
portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment
on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the
facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered
extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the
original text of the book. see page 39 of this
humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf
It constantly amazes me how obviously intelligent Mormon leaders can spout such absurd lies and mumbo jumbo with such apparent conviction in their determined climb up the corporate ladder of Mormonism. How do you spell Kiss Ass?
Humans make errors. Prophets are human, therefore, Prophets make mistakes. So we SHOULD NOT FOLLOW PROPHETS. DUH! Mic 🎤 drop!
This explains RFM passing comment about McKay this past week.
7:37 RBM pulling an RFM. Rebecca Biblioteca Muted.
😂😂
The rapidity with which the brethren abrograte themselves is truly a sight to behold!
Per McKay, the solution is a cult bubble.
The lawyer tradition started after Arrington. Want to know why, ready BKPs talk "The Mantle is Far Far Greater Than the Intellect"
Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought the whole concept of the "used to be" Mormon, and now rebranded as "LDS" church was that they guy in charge, the President of the church is supposedely a "Prophet". A messenger of God Himself. And God doesn't make mistakes or errors.
So this begs the question, is Russel M. Nelson a Prophet? Or a prophet in name only? I'll wait.
Where can you watch the full talk?
video.byui.edu/media/t/1_emz6rix1
I’ve been wanting to point out for a while how interesting it is that on this side of faith content providers don’t think for a second before sharing any and all material that is used to confront their positions. There is a movement amongst LDS podcasters to not even mention the names of content providers who don’t support the church let alone provide a link to their work. Good stuff and very telling.
So... much... gaslighting. Must... break... free. 😂
It’s fascinating to me that I always find an untrue assertion like this-for example, all the grammatical changes made by Joseph Smith himself in the Book of Mormon. The anti guy asserted-“ if the Book of Mormon was indeed translated by the gift and power of God, then he (Joseph Smith) had no right to tamper with it!”
That assertion is untrue. People, everything must be known by knowing the whole story, not just bits and pieces of it. That whole perspective is necessary. If there is any missing information, it is easy to come up with a logical and completely reasonable sounding assertion that is simply NOT true. And this is the rabbit hole that these bloggers and “Mormon stories” John Dehlin go down. This has been the case with all of this since I started studying anti-Mormon rhetoric 40 years ago. The gospel is true. Joseph Smith saw what he saw. No sophistry by people trying to overturn faith in this work will destroy it-but many will get lost in the “mists”.
Sounds like you're coping by simply repeating assertions (like mantras) that are not consistent with known facts and logic. "The gospel is true". (That's a meaningless statement. Is polygamy part of the "gospel"? Is the prohibition against drinking green tea part of the "gospel"? Is preventing non-member parents from participating in the temple wedding ceremony of their children part of the "gospel"? "Joseph Smith saw what he saw". Another meaningless statement. Everyone sees what they see and don't see what they don't see. So what? The problem is that Joseph Smith made up stories about "what he saw" and his stories were not consistent with each other and even contradicted each other. There's not even any reason to believe any of the stories were true. They don't even sound original, but rather sound like stories other preachers and ministers at that time would tell about how they were "called to the ministry".
12:14 "Don't pollute your testimony with false philosophies of unbelieving men and women."
What have false philosophies got to do with anything? What if someone has a legitimate question about an issue in church history?
He's obscuring and complicating things.
Characterizing criticisms as "false philosophies" without offering a scintilla of proof that they are false is a classic begging-the-question fallacy. McKay's entire talk consists of a string of bald assertions, unproven premises and unsupported assumptions, discussed using undefined terms. The Church's prophet can't lead the church astray, but apparently can make fundamental mistakes...so don't worry about the mistakes because even if the "prophet" teaches you to worship as your "ONLY" god a being whom subsequent "prophets" declare is "NOT GOD"...nobody was led astray per se...it was just, you know, one of those mistakes that everybody makes. (Of course McKay studiously avoided discussing any specific examples of such "mistakes" because to do so would have instantly revealed the emptiness of his rhetoric.)
Well, there have to be choices. And the evidence must support all the choices and also put all the choices in doubt. Because god wanted you to make choices in circumstances where the correct choice is not clear because god is that way or some people think that god is that way, but is god really that way? That's a choice right there. The only thing that a General Authority knows for sure is that the General Authority always makes the correct choice, even when they don't make the correct choice, in which case, you should choose to believe despite the compelling evidence that indicates that the choice was wrong...and that's how you know the choice could only have been that choice. So don't doubt and be sure to pay your tithing and stay on the covenant path. I really can't understand why Mormonism is not growing by leaps and bounds. The gospel is so plain and precious.
33:33 I think the underlying argument that's trying to be made here is, it doesn't take a man making such major and immoral blunders as Joseph Smith did in order for an imperfect man to restore God's church.
Usually when someone says, "nobody's perfect", it's in the context of the person doing their utmost to live or do the best they can, not that it's to be used as an excuse for criminal behavior.
edit: And also to illustrate the argument that a person's character needs to be taken into account before making a personal investment into them and their activity, just look at some of the people who ran major crypto projects and exchanges who's businesses collapsed last year! Sam Bankman Fried was an absolute menace with billions of dollars of people's money.
So how harder of a defense is it for the church for them to defend their founder was a known and convicted con man at the time!? People got caught up in the hype at the time, made foolish decisions with their life and ended up getting moved around the country avoiding persecution, getting into skirmishes, etc.
And Sam Bankman Fried even posed himself as a somewhat relatable guy to the average American who just sort of stumbled upon a major business venture and seemed trustworthy because of his relatable demeanor. Whereas Joseph Smith was pretty openly conceited about his position in life.
Who the hell is McKay to be telling any one what to think and how to think about anything.
The whole talk was a big bundle anti-intellectual teachings. Once people realize that the LDS methodology for conversion is essentially self indoctrination, all the dialogue used in speaking about the methodology in the church falls into place.
The "read and pray" model for gaining knowledge of the church's truth claims only serves to manufacture believers out of skeptics. It does not lead to knowledge. And it creates believers in the most unprincipled way one could imagine. It actively encourages a person to lead with their emotions, to lead with their bias. Alma 32: 27, as Kyle McKay even quoted, says, "even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you". This is an active and explicit endorsement of committing one's self to their bias and suppressing their skepticism.
This is not a methodology for gaining knowledge, it's a methodology for literally manufacturing believers out of skeptics. You only become someone who _believes_ you have knowledge, and that it's not possible for you to be wrong.
It's basically the church's version of "Heads, we win! Tails, you lose!" The testimony-gaining formula that they teach is 100% rigged into a no-lose proposition for the church. If you get good feelings about what they want you to believe, that's a sign from God and the Holy Ghost. If you get bad feelings about what they want you to believe, that's a sign that you're "not in tune" with God and the Holy Ghost and may be under the influence of the Devil. If you get no feelings, you need to work harder because there really is only one correct answer and that's the answer the church wants you to get. It's also like those political situations where the elites keep forcing referendum after referendum on the same issue until the voters finally accept the decision that the elites wanted all along...and after that no more referendums are ever needed...for some reason.
Speaking of being someone to cause someone to doubt, tell you what “brother” you have done a perfect job of confirming a bunch of my doubts. 😂what a snake oil salesman!
The notion Prophets are incapable to speaking anything but the will of God in their calling comes from Deuteronomy 18:20 where it says God won't allow His Prophet to speak anything in the name of God which God hasn't commanded; and if he does, that prophet will die.
It's seems the church is changing lots of their core teachings. Yet the vast majority of the membership won't see or hear this talk.
38:11 This point needs to be shouted from the rooftops. If there's anything the Church does that frustrates me a lot, it's the way it quietly distances itself from things it once stood for. The members become confused aiding the contention and strife between one another. They rarely disavow anything. When they do eventually disavow something they call it a theory. If there was a theory (like evolution in the 1960s and 70s) they would try to squash it asap. They never called the reasons for the doctrine that restricted the priesthood, the temple, and exaltation for people of color a theory until 2013 when they published the Race and the Priesthood essay on their own website.
Theory of evolution was LONG before 1960s...Lol
My brothers and sisters, I would like to bear my testimony of the divinity of this great work. You say the gospel and the truth claims of Mormonism make no sense? That is the greatest evidence of their truth. God wants you to believe absurd lies and nonsense to prove your love of Him. If Mormonism made sense, anybody could believe but it takes a special kind of person to believe the unbelievable. I say these things....
I can't stand the obvious arrogance displayed here in this talk! 🤨
Prophets are men. Men make mistakes. Therefore prophets make mistakes. Believe in Christ. Everything else prophets say doesn't matter. Question: how then are Mormons to distinguish when a prophet is teaching or speaking accurately or as a flawed human or is it indistinguishable? It's said that the current Mormon prophet's teachings are the only ones that matter and to ignore previous teachings of prophets, when they were wrong or replaced. Does the new/current prophet-President ever come in with a platform which states which past prophet teachings are now out and which are still in? If not, at least in the minds of followers, are not past prophet's words current until a more recent prophet overrides them, like Woodruff overriding Smith's polygamy? Does Nelson need to restate Woodruff's polygamy stance today to insure it's the latest position, or does the past President's position still stand on it's own? How can i know if Woodruff's teaching is flawed today? ...i only use polygamy as an example because it's a big and obvious "correction" that seems to still stand without recent prophets needing to reiterate it. What about the less obvious teachings that are uncorrected or only quietly corrected? It seems Mr McKay has shined a light on a logical flaw, in the prophetic nature of the Mormon Church, with his position that the Church's history itself points out how flawed and wrong it's prophets have been over time. It could be considered a logistical flaw in president-apostle succession, if they wanted to instead track a list of all the core doctrinal teachings and keep it current with each President and conference. Everything else said by prophets could then be considered "aspirational" and "inspirational" teachings only. Categorization may help members understand current from historical positions and give them reference to study it "correctly" Rather than blame them when they couldn't find it in all 150+ years of broad history and teachings, especially if they have twice annual prophetic teaching conferences for most of that time.
The idea that religious faith should trump evidence and reason is intellectually dishonest gibberish. To me, a person of faith is someone who is willing to believe or pretend to believe absurd lies and nonsense without anything even approaching half decent evidence. But, that is the only way a person with half a brain can believe.
I just want to say that I am a fan of your show, but one of your arguments in this episode didn't quite sit right with me: I don't understand why you both are claiming that the "opposition in all things" argument is manipulative. It seems to me that it is the most intellectually honest and non-manipulative argument that can be made for religious faith. It makes me sad that you would accuse someone of being manipulative when all they are trying to do is come up with a justification for their faith that pro-actively respects the decisions of those who have reached different conclusions about the truth (or lack thereof) of Mormonism.
You both seem to adopt a non-Mormon soteriology as to why it would be manipulative for God to let us loose on Earth without better evidence for his existence. If all chances for salvation ended at death, then yes it would be manipulative for God to put forth compelling evidence against religious claims. But as you are both well aware, Mormonism does not teach that salvation attempts end at death. You both know that most Mormons reject the idea that you will "burn in hell forever" for not believing during this life. It is Mormon/LDS doctrine that you can only go to Outer Darkness if you literally see Jesus Christ and then reject him. So I am very confused as to why you are misrepresenting Mormon doctrine to make your point here.
The historian is not saying you will go to hell for choosing differently from him. Rather, he is respecting the fact that compelling information exists to make you choose the way you have chosen. It is a very agency-respecting argument for him to make, especially in light of the LDS belief that one can choose to believe after death.
We are glad you are a fan. Our reason for stating that his argument claiming that opposition is manipulative is because the opposition that he claims god allows was manipulated by the church through the historian’s office. As an example, Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the First Vision account and then the church teaching a different version for years and now claiming that members finding out this information is really opposition from Satan which God allows to test members faith. Then to state that if you can’t get past these facts and believe in Christ’s church after we manipulated the evidence you can’t be saved (which is the Mormon definition of hell not being able to progress). Bottom line our point is you can’t come from the organization that manipulated the evidence, give a speech that says you need to ingnore the fact that the evidence was manipulated, and then say Satan allowed the evidence to be manipulated to test you and we were just fulfilling god’s plan by lying to you.
Can you stare down truth? Ugh, nauseating.
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy... This McKay "historian" should be ashamed of himself... O wait... He should have had the 2nd anointing... Oh well...
Yeah, it was like somebody asked him how many logical fallacies he wanted in his talk and he said "all of them". Circular reasoning, begging the question, juxtaposing two terms ("astray" and "mistake") that in ordinary contexts may be regarded as synonymous, then pretending to distinguish them without actually mentioning any distinction.... The "prophet can never lead the church astray" quote is classic Mormon non-think. When a TBM quotes that to me, I ask them who said it. Answer: "The Prophet". Question: "How do you know he wasn't leading the church astray when he said that?" Answer: "Because the prophet can never lead the church astray." Question: "Who said that?" Eventually, they catch on to the circularity.
"charismatic storyteller" or charlatan?
OK question does he Believe this or did he just draw the short straw??,
Don’t be “lazy learners” but better to be a lazy learner than look where the church doesn’t want you to look…gaslighting?
This speech is the very definition of gaslighting!
The evidence that evwryone including apostles have sinned and done embarrasing or even hoorendous things exists. Dont let it get in the wyay of ur faith.
BYU-I, BYU-P... I asked ChatGPT which is the worse dump of the two, and the model could not decide.
Please tell us your theories about how the Book of Mormon came about.
What’s the point you’re trying to make? Do share
Satan did a very effective job of creating doubts in his gospel topics essays !
If the history is not that importance at all..maybe we should not do genealogical jot down😅😮
33:40
Amazingly arrogant and contentious, almost pounded the podium.
How can belief and faith be placed in a doctrine that is no longer the original restored doctrine?
IGNORE THE AWFUL TRUTH BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
IGNORE THE AWFUL WANT BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
IGNORANCE
&
WANT
BEWARE THEM BOTH!
A quote attributed to Carl Sandburg: "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the law and facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Seems that the leaders are in the final stages. There is no doctrinal logic left to resort to (so the "law" is against them and their self-proclaimed authority). There are no valid faith-promoting stories left to resort to and no fake ones that can't be debunked immediately (so the "facts" are against them). All that is left to them is to raise their voices and pound the podium.
When you seek answers from the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible, God can't help you because you have turned your back on Him. Therefore this leaves the door open for Satan (II Corinthians 11:14-15) to step into your life with a false christ or prophet showing you signs and wonders to lead you away from the real Jesus of the Bible who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity. God Himself warns us about this in MATTHEW 24:23-24 "Then if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Christ! or There! do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect..."
Mormons teach and believe that their jesus is the brother of Satan, which contradicts what God says in His Bible that Jesus is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity.
So Mormons, which Jesus do you believe in?
A. Your jesus of the Book of Mormon, who is the brother of Satan.
OR
B. The Jesus of the Bible, who is God the Son 2nd person of the Trinity.
C None of the above!
@Mormonish Podcast
Well, that's a very shallow response. But then again, the Mormon church has no response and no Biblical or academic evidence for Mormonism.
I think you misunderstand our podcast. We have left the Mormon church and no longer subscribe to Mormon theology, evangelical theology, or any other religious theology. We seek truth not from religion but from reliable, provable sources!
@@mormonishpodcast1036
Want reliable....read the Bible.
Love your podcast. I have subscribed and will be listening and watching just like I have Mormon Stories for years.
But there is one thing on which I wish we call could get on the same page, and that is to stop using the word pedophilia in regard to J. Smith's underage brides. Yes, they were underage, but no they very likely would NOT have been of interest to a pedophile. Puberty may have come later then, on average, but a 14.5-year-old girl was very likely post-pubescent, even in 1840. Lindsey Hansen Park (Year of Polygamy) made this same point on Mormon Stories some years ago. A pedophile is attracted to and seeks little kids, meaning for a girl, no boobs and no pubes. Four, not fourteen. This insistence on calling Joe a pedo makes us look bad because we are misrepresenting the facts for effect. Joseph Smith provided far more than enough rope for the world to hang him on, we don't need to sensationalize. Misrepresenting the facts is the very essence of what Mormon apologetics is, and we owe it to ourselves and anyone watching/listening to make every effort to avoid doing the same.
Actually in 1831 Joseph approached 12 year old Mary Elizabeth Rawlings and in a private conversation told her he had had a great vision concerning her. He said she was the first woman god commanded him to take as a plural wife and said a sword bearing angel had threatened to kill him if it didn’t come to pass. He made several attempts to convince her to marry him and finally married her a decade later. “Letter from Mary Elizabeth Rawlings Lightner to Emmaline B Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives”. So his first advance to secure a plural wife that we know of was a twelve year old girl. This is why many refer to him by this term.
@@mormonishpodcast1036 Hmm, I was thinking that when he said that to her he was specifically talking about it happening sometime in the future, not that he wanted her to marry him right then. Guess I'll need to go back and refresh on that. Thanks.
This is so bad
Either the Book Of Mormon comes from God or it comes from the Deivil himself
How can a bitter tree produce good friut ?
I have a idea how bout all you exmo as you like to call yourself start your own church 😂
as soon as we find some gold plates, we will be up and deceiving 👍🤣