Видео

20:40 I've read Solomon Spaulding's manuscript... it's a romance novel as similar to the book of mormon as the bible is to a Danielle Steel novel. You really must read a bit of both to realize how ridiculous the claim of plagiarism is here ... beyond laughable. Both available online for free ... investigate this claim of it even just being a incriminating "literary device" yourself and have a good laugh. 😂

There is no evidence except for what I choose to ignore or dismiss based on the fact that an apologist presents it. Having examined nearly every anti Mormon claim there's a reason they're wildly ineffective.

20:27 wow, surely the most inaccurate misrepresentation here. Joseph Smith's mother wrote a book ANYONE can read called History of Joseph Smith by His Mother. Free versions online. Every word is a tribute to Joseph's character and the veracity of his claims. I don't say that to suggest anything about Joseph Smith, she was is mother after all, but the podcasters here are painting a very inaccurate picture of what she said about Joseph Smith.

19:16 um ... actually its not "Mormon apologists" trying to reframe the story as the Nephites being a small group in America. It's the book of mormon that says that. Also nowhere within the book of the mormon does it say that the land wasn't peopled before Jaredites arrived. Again, this is not a history book, its a book where Christ is referred to in over half of the verses, on average. Religious book, not a history book. Teaches spiritual truths not historical details. Most indigenous Americans came over the bering straight, we know because science... the Book of Mormon does not dispute that. Spiritual message, not academic. 🙄

18:45 that's not what it says (that any race was "superior"). It says the Lamanites became nomadic hunters, while Nephites were house-dwelling farmers. Of course the hunting nomads were darker, baking in the sun, which "marked" them as unworthy for Nephites to marry. That was the "curse": not being able to intermarry ... the Book of Mormon is very clear on that matter (what the curse was). It has nothing to do with skin color ... the skin color was treated as an identifying "mark". Also the book of mormon says NOTHING about "Ham". Lamanites were the descendants of Laman, who murdered, plundered, etc, and if they became Nephites, living that life, yeah the skin lightened just as it does if you start living indoors instead of outdoors all day. In fact Nephi and Laman were brothers ... neither was a descendant of Ham, or they would both be. Duh. But yeah, it never says the Nephites were "superior". The darker skin was a "mark", and the curse was not being able to intermarry with Nephites. Were Nephites prejudiced? Probably, but the book of mormon is not saying they were superior, only that they didnt murder or plunder, and lived lives that coincidentally left them lighter skinned.

18:15, we dont know what they meant by the names of animals or grains. The old world did not have Llamas, so calling those an old world name (or translating it such) to something like horses is not surprising. Pre-columbian wheeled toys exist. And we do know that even today people in Book of Mormon regions do not consume much wheat, and we know the book of mormon Nephites were small in number compared to other people (who were nomadic) there so it's not surprising their diet is not widely represented in the archeology.

17:50 An astonishing claim. I've been to the book of mormon regions. I've seen the mayan art depicting 2 distinctly different colored peoples in the same art. I've seen prolific examples of the mesoamerican world tree concept in line with the book of mormon tree of life. The commonalities between Quetzalcoatl and the Book of Mormon risen Christ are significant with an uncanny identical timeline (including the 200 years of peace you mention). And the revised timeline of the Mayan people given recent discoveries put their civilization people back to 600 BCE to also line up exactly with the Book of Mormon timeline. Even the archeological migration patterns of that civilization line up. Are you looking for exact words of things unique to the Book of Mormon recently discovered in archeology texts dating back to the same time? How about the book of mormon grain called "sheum"? Independently found in akkadian texts and determined by non-mormon archeologists to be a grain like barley. Akkadian couldn't even be translated until 1857, 27 years after the Book of Mormon was published. Lehi likely used the grain on his way to the promised land. I can go on, but the Book of Mormon isn't a history book. it's a religious record, and besides, faith should be built on spiritual truths, not archeology, so I'll stop there.

Total baloney On my birthday too. 😢😢

16:55 there's a lot of things to justify cynicism but this shouldn't be one of them, because if JS had just retranslated the lost manuscript word for word, what was to keep the manuscript thieves from altering the original to claim it was false? In fact, that was the exact reason why it wasn't retranslated. I think there were other justifiable reasons too, but this one point is salient enough to justify JS actions there.

FWIW, Jesus Christ is referred to on average more often than every 2 verses, so you might get some idea of *when* and *where* it happened by listening to this podcast, but not *what* it is. It has a fundamental theme: Jesus Christ, which is why its subtitle is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ ".

Jewish? No. They were not from the tribe of Judah so you won't ever hear any Mormon call book of mormon people "Jewish".

Community of Christ dont consider themselves Mormon. They dont even consider the book of mormon as scripture.

I literally back up everything Cocadean says in his last comment, the fact that you fail 99% to actually say the name of the Church correctly during this entire podcast completely undercuts any level of knowledge or expertise you claim to have regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints. The most galling example is at 6:16, where, and I quote, "might annoy any member of the church of latter day saints, to give Mormon's their official title." No, you removed the most important part of the church's name, which is Jesus Christ. That part is what annoys members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints.

it sounds like you looked as close at the Book of Mormon as you did the same old debunked tropes. there are videos you could watch to find out the truth. completely redundant video.

or, God gave us the back story. but, yes the early nation was a reasonable platform for tolerating the church… barely.

it’s The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the church of latter-day saints.

❤interesting & meaningful discourse 👍🏼😎

Good discussion however the first 5 to 10 minutes are wasted babbling. Please focus.

Great work on the podcast guys! Keep up the good work