Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may attain eternal salvation. ~ Vatican 2
@@desmondjones8517 they were held in Limbo until Jesus opened the gates to Heaven. See John 5:25 : Even the dead will hear the Gospel. . Each person is only held to account for what they knew or had the opportunity to know.
Funny you mentioned it, I was at a hotel last week and they had a Book of Mormon in the room. I picked it up just to see what it was like, and I swear every other sentence started with “And it came to pass” lol
see the preface to the NKJV, and the translators decision to render 'and it came to pass'/'thus saith' &c in a variety of ways compared to the KJV's tendency to translate the Hebrew phrase in the same way.
@@andrewseymore4506 you want to explain how Mormon Doctrine keeps showing up in the Apocrypha when Joseph Smith had access to exactly none of it? Eternal Marriage, Intelligence of Man is Co-Equal with God, Mankind may become as God, Plan of Salvation, Restoration of the Gospel (Peter said that a False Gospel [Catholicism] must come first as an imposter, and only then can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects that are to come)
LOL He is? I've heard a lot of stupid things said about Joseph Smith, but that's a new one. Who the hell calls him _that_? Only absolute idiots would compare them. What do Muslims teach? That God no longer speaks to His children; no longer gives new scripture; & no longer calls living prophets. What do sectarian Christians teach? That God no longer speaks to His children; no longer gives new scripture; & no longer calls living prophets. Was Joseph Smith saying, "God doesn't have a son," and then war mongered his way through history? No? Then he's not "The American Mohammed."
If the Church that Jesus founded became apostate and disappeared for 1900 years, it would indicate that Jesus lied to us when He said "I will not leave you nor forsake you". I know Jesus didn't lie to us but Joseph Smith definitely did.
Even more offensive considering that Mormons believe The True church either vanished and reappeared as the Mormon church we see now, or it didnt exist until modern day. Which is completely contradictory to The Bible which teaches that "The gates of Hades (hell) will not overcome the Kingdom of God" (c.f Matthew 16:18)
The light of Christ never left though... He didn't forsake anyone. There was no lack of forgiveness or mercy during the apostasy. There just wasn't priesthood authority to be found. That doesn't make Jesus a liar.
We have about 9 young couples in our OCIA (Order for Christian Initiation for Adults) Program that are former Mormons at St Anne Catholic Church in Gilbert, AZ. Their instruction is weekly with in a large inquirer group setting that builds community along with their Sponsors who attend the weekly classes with them from the beginning starting September through Easter when they are baptized and confirmed into the Catholic Faith on Saturday, Easter Vigil of Holy Week. It is a beautiful journey and covered in prayer by the Sponsors and Candidates alike. That is why we Catholics say “Welcome Home” when Inquirers become Catechumens and begin regular attendance at Mass realizing the sanctuary is where Heaven comes to earth through the Eucharist.
I left Mormonism a long time ago, became Catholic this past year. I have to say that, after being in both, Catholicism is by far the more spiritually uplifting. Mass isn't just a bunch of "hey guys, you're all great, I'm great, let's pay tithing and do whatever we're told!" The focus is totally on Jesus. Mormonism is a one size fits all religion, which was one of my biggest problems. Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, all have various ways to carry out the faith and grow closer to God and are adaptable to the lay person. It really is universal. You have any questions, let me know.
@@TheCharlie1701 Why do members of all these large religions not be able to see that they are in bondage to their church. Each one adds rituals that have nothing to do with Gods Word the Bible. My Bible tells me it is the Gift of God and yet each church has these rituals an requires payment.
@@robertrlkatz6890 Cause candles are expensive. But in all seriousness, I don't think you'd understand. At least we can agree that Jesus is the Messiah.
@@TheCharlie1701 But why even do those religions when it does not even heed the True Bible, why be in a religion that threatens their members of apostacy if you should leave it. My Bible does not do that, it does not tell us to do all that man made up stuff. Does not force people to give their money.
The major claim of Islam is that no one could create a book like the Quran, that you know it’s true when you read it-exactly like JS with the BoM. And so many overlaps with violent history, political nature of the religion, convenient/manipulative revelations to justify its founder’s indiscretions, polygamy, etc… If these religions post-date Christianity by many centuries and supposed to be a revival of the true faith, why are the moral teachings/behaviors of their founders set to a lower standard? What is added the Christianity didn’t already have in a more developed form?
The notion that nobody could create a book like the Quran is ridiculous when you remember that the Iliad and Odyssey are Greek Poems that are *longer* than the Quran, and were recited orally for *centuries*.
@@tylerk1013Also the fact that almost all of the non biblical stories in the Quran are copied from stories in apocryphal and pseudepigraphical Christian or Jewish writings like the Infancy Gospel or the life of Adam and Eve
@@trevoradams3530 Surely the Bible contains no history of politics, violence, and convenient revelations to justify centuries of indiscretions, crusades, and monarchies.
LDS missionaries don't try and convert people based on the claim that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon. They invite people to read it for themselves and then ask God if it is true. IT seems to me that you are relying on a Strawman argument by attributing primary importance to a rather minor apologetic belief that has more popularity on You Tube than in the LDS Church as a whole.
@@brettmajeske3525 The claim that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon is potentially a stronger claim than simply asking someone to "ask God if it is true." I'm sure you'll agree that members of non-LDS religions claim that God has revealed to them the truth of their own religion. I'm sure, furthermore, you'll agree that some people have reported having asked God whether Mormonism is true, and have not received an affirmative response. Therefore, this claim is difficult to substantiate. The former claim about Smith, well, at least we can grapple with it and debate whether it's true or false.
I grew up LDS and my searching eventually led me to wanting to start my Catechism in the Catholic Church. I will say, despite their heretical teachings, Mormons that i grew up with exemplify how Jesus would want us to live. Big families, church goers, patriarchal and traditional. Which is better than other churches have done(cough cough, gay flags in Protestant churches). Good people that have been led astray
I believe they are good people who were led astray initially and have been working their way toward Christianity. They weren't always so kind and we all know they did teach the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church. Let's talk about FRUIT, the fruit of the church that still follows the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young IS the fundamentalist LDS church. The current mainstream LDS church does not look like the church it its original form.
@@JoshM1212 I mean, evangelical churches and Baptist churches a lot of them have gone full woke They’re allowing women to be pastors and marrying gay people recently even pope Francis allowed priests to bless gay marriage. The LDS church is doing better than any of them in that aspect except for maybe orthodoxy.
@@isaiahdryg9725 For the 1000th time. Pope Francis did not say priests could bless same sex unions or any other "disordered union". He has clarified that over and over again. He simply said if a person that is in a same sex union asks for a blessing, not a blessing of a union, but one that may allow them to receive grace and change their heart ...do so. That is no different than what the LDS church does.
Yet another great content done. Thank you, brother Trent H, and all the awesome souls behind this RUclips channel @TheCounselofTrent. God bless you and your ministry. Greetings from the South West Pacific.
He has to post his arguments in this format in order to curate the comments section and not have his poor research blown out in the debate with Jacob Hansen. Robert Boylan already refuted every point of this days ago.
@GldnClaw yes, I am Catholic, and even I agree that leading Mormon scholars debunked his points recently. I was disappointed he just restated them here. I was hoping he would engage with their rebuttals ... I actually found Jacob's arguments much more convincing (and that came as a total shock to me).
@@catholicdisciple3232 I've seen really good apologetics from the Roman Catholic church. There are even some aspects that I have "holy envy" of (if I've used the term correctly). I was hoping that would reflect in Trent's response here.
@@GldnClawlet qoute Boy Lan: Trent is a piece of S--t . He said they don't want him to swear so he said Extrment instead. Your boy has rejected Christianity and it's obvious to authentic Christians.
Some missionaries gave me the Book of Mormon and asked for my thoughts. When I said it didn’t resonate to me and that I wasn't that impressed with its claims, they claimed I hadn’t opened my heart enough. It felt like they wouldn’t be satisfied unless I gave a glowing review, which seemed manipulative.
I always struggled with the “how does it make you feel.” If the answer is in any way positive, “that is the Holy Spirit confirming to your Spirit that it is true.” Well jeez, if I applied that to other literature I suppose I’d be easily duped by anything that I enjoy reading…
Do you realize that missionaries are young people (18-20 years old) who devote 1.5-2 years of their lives sharing a book and a religion that has had impact on their personal lives? You don't have to agree with the book, but at least recognize these young people's personal investment in their faith which is the reason they might be disappointed in your reaction
@@jackzones678 Actually, the missionaries were older than me at the time, lol. If they were truly devoted, they'd be less stubborn and more self-aware. Their disappointment in my reaction only highlights how weak their conviction really is. If their faith was solid, they wouldn’t need me to “open my heart” or give a glowing review to validate it. Expecting that is manipulative and desperate, not a sign of true belief. Try sending better people next time.
@@centurysince4312 Still, I don't think even if muslZims are a minority in a region they will be as peace loving as the Mormons. MuhaZmmad's conquests made him a role model that was too brutal for their religion .
It feels like Trent felt guilty of being too respectful towards Mormonism in a recent interview 😂. Respect for obliterating this false religion. Thank you for doing what you do and God bless you.
Maybe my thought on this is too far removed from what youre meaning but I’d say I agree! However, I say this because for some reason or reasons I have struggled with the thought that this is too often the case with a number of Catholic apologists on RUclips in terms of how they speak of and speak to other faiths and even within the denominations in Christianity. Maybe it’s my sinful, flawed, corrupt way of thinking that lead me to this conclusion. I understand we should be charitable and respectful always. I recently started reading the works of the Church Fathers and I haven’t yet read their and the Church’s response to certain heretical groups but I doubt they spoke to them like apologists today speak to our modern day groups. And I doubt the Church Fathers and councils failed to keep charity and fraternal love while they confronted those in their day.
That's probably why Jacob focused on the fruits of the LDS faith. It's hard to obliterate a false religion that's getting better results than the "true" one. Citing geography and archaeology to prove theology? It's not a strong position.
@@HaleStorm49yea that’s exactly what i thought. showing mormons are doing better in terms of something like age for example doesn’t prove that the book of mormon is divine revelation. i was surprised to see that people thought jacob did good when his arguments could be applied to almost any religion or new divine revelation. he doesn’t have the uniqueness of the arguments for the Bible, so i think he did pretty poor
I was raised Mormon but decided to leave when I was 20. The argument that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon because he was an uneducated farm boy doesn't work for many reasons but here is one of them: the First Vision Account, which was written by J Smith without inspiration from God (as Mormons acknowledge), is very well written. In fact, Harold Bloom described it as a masterpiece. Therefore, we _know_ that Joseph Smith could write very well since he wrote the First Vision Account. Its by no means implausible then that he could have written the BofM, which is in places tremendously boring and repetitive.
That's the worst agument I've heard yet. Which account at which age are you talking about? The one in History of the Church is the 5th one from 1842, 22 years after it happened, with the Lord having taught Joseph since then. That particular account was the one that was part of the Wentworth letter (that had the Articles of Faith) in it as well. You seem to only have been raised *culturally* a member, or are being disingenous.
@@GldnClaw I'm pleased that you mention the fact that there are multiple versions of the First Vision since (as you know) they contradict each other, which is another disproof of Mormonism. Did Joseph Smith write the 1842 First Vision Account? Yes. Did he claim that it was revealed to him? No. Is it exceptionally well written? Yes. So, it would seem that Smith unquestionably had the ability to write exceptionally well since the First Vision account is exceptionally well written. Harold Bloom said that it is a 'masterpiece'. Do we all have the capacity to write a literary masterpiece? I don't think so. So, it would appear that Smith was very gifted at writing. Therefore, its not implausible that he should have composed the B of M, which, in parts, is atrociously written. So, its by no means a 'defeater' but it shows that Smith had literary gifts of a high order. My father was a Bishop and a Stake President. I have met Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Monson and Pres. Faust. I was even commended in the Preston Temple by Pres. Hinckley in 1997 (or 1998, I can't recall the exact year). I was not just a cultural Mormon. Sorry, but I am not following a man who practiced polygamy and polyandry and who lied to his wife and who burned down a printing press. Sorry! Not interested.
You realize he wrote the first vision account several years afters he translated the Book of Mormon? And, unlike the translation of the BOM, Smith could edit his writing of the first vision accounts. This is just a bad argument.
except he completely ignored the fact that natives referred to European horses as tapirs and that Romans referred to hippos as horses. He was playing off of peoples ignorance and you fell right into it.
They used to laugh at the idea that steel swords were found in Jerusalem too. Recent science has proven that to be true. See the Jericho Sword. Give it time... "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Is one of Trent's favorite lines he uses against atheists, but now he argues like an atheist himself.
“All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so 'slow', so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle - keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.” -- Mark Twain
@@GldnClaw I quote it because its funny. To examine the truth, all you have to do is look at what the LDS and Joseph Smith claimed, and notice its pretty much entirely incorrect. Similarly, I find the idea that a man claiming to be a prophet of God managed to get nothing right and die in a jail shoot out to have a certain comedic absurdity to it, it could probably make for a good Coen Brothers flick.
Convenient Mark Twain quotes. Here are some more of his: "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." "No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live."
@@couragecoachsam "Convenient". I am sorry that this is confusing to you. I do not think LDS is false because Mark Twain said it. Similarly, I do not think he is any authority or even that he has anything particularly interesting to say when it comes to religion. Twain's personal feelings on religion are imminently irrelevant to a truth claim, and saying No God or religion can survive ridicule is simply and demonstrably false. I quoted his take on the Book of Mormon because I think that its funny. You can tell I think this because I said, "I quote it because its funny". There is no good reason to be LDS, when literally none of the claims made by the people involved are true. And getting into a shoot 'em up in prison because you smashed up a printer is an insane way for anyone to die, let alone someone representing God. But its also insane that someone allegedly aided by God almighty was somehow unable to properly translate Egyptian, despite the fact that regular people can do that, apparently it was a bit to hard for Joseph Smith and God.
Good morning, Trent! I hope you go on Matt's Pints With Aquinas podcast again...and surpass the 6 1/2 hour Jimmy episode! I hear, or, hopefully, will hear 7 hours is the perfect number! =) I keep mentioning your "It's Not Always Demons" with Jimmy Akin and "The Emptiness of 'Political Christianity" at any opportunity in discussion. They're a couple of my all time favorite youtube videos reflecting on childhood onward! Prayed for you, your family, and everyone here at Mass yesterday and in my Rosary this morning. Hope you and yours have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed week!
I have a simple argument against Mormonism: Joseph Smith claimed that God is "an exalted man" and that there is an "eternal ring of the gods"; but we know that God is _not_ an "exalted man"; therefore Mormonism is false. All of the great world religions recognise that God is a transcendent reality outside of all of our categories and we have good reasons to suppose that such a reality exists. The Mormon 'god' is (in the final analysis) another contingent, that is, dependent, being (since he depends on another 'god' and obedience to law) and therefore is no divinity at all.
Former member x 10 years, now Catholic, and I came to the personal conclusion the universe is essentially God in the Mormon religion and the Mormon version of God is essentially an advanced alien being. An exalted man subject to laws external to Himself who has mastered them/gained in power/glory over time. It’s a very different concept, as you note, from the transcendent God of other major religions, more similar to the pagan faiths. Also, any being incapable of creating from nothing and only able to organize preexistent matter is not omnipotent…
No, God through Joseph corrected the false narrative that God is without parts or passions. Jesus Christ is God the Son. He did only that which he saw the Father do. Jesus was resurrected and lives eternally embodied. The Father then was resurrected and lives eternally embodied.
@@couragecoachsam You are claiming that 'God' was once _not_ 'God' but had to become 'God' by obedience to law and that he himself had a god, and so on ad infinitum. Thus, in fact, you are claiming that 'God' is (1) a created being and (2) that he is a dependent being, even for his power. That is most certainly not what the Bible teaches- or any other religion for that matter. God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" but I can easily think of a being greater than the Mormon 'god', therefore Mormonism is idolatrous nonsense.
Trent made the same argument with Jacob that all these other religions agree on the nature of God. He also cited non Christian scholars. Makes a strong case for consensus Christianity. It's true because we all agree it's true 🤔
@@kellyjohnson4578mormons believe that the native Americans are related to Israelites according to the Book of Mormon but dna testing has completely disproven that
you are another one who missed the point: Hansen used Trent's own "argument" with the Bible as an example to show Trent's double standard in evaluating BOM. So, if Trent makes that kind of "refutation" video, he'll be refuting himself.
I could never debate a Mormon, especially one like Jacob, because: 1) I know very little of Mormonism. 2) I would probably go after the common talking points Mormons have answered for years. 3) I may end up arguing like an atheist. 4) I am forever affected by South Park's episode on Mormonism. I would just keep thinking about the "Dumb, Dumb, Dumb," song.
Yeah #4 is like the _Hope and Change_ for religious dialogue. It turns people's brains off. I dislike that they set it up as a debate (rather than a Joe Rogan-style discussion) since it's counterproductive to curiosity-based discovery. it will be interesting to see if we get something a little more genuine, laid back, and potentially unsafe in the future.
Just this year, several new cities in the amazon have been uncovered with populations estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. If your argument for the BoM being invalid is there’s no evidence, that’s just ridiculous. We’re barely starting to explore how many archaeological sites there are in central and south america.
Nobody denies that we are learning about history more and more every day with new discoveries, but the last of inspired Scripture came 2000 years ago, it's not still being written today, sorry.
One of the reasons is that it doesn't have a map, isn't it? Edit: Wow I was kinda right. 😂 The comment was meant to be a reference to the 'Horribly out of context' Trent hron video.
Having been raised a Mormon and studied to be a professor of Mormon doctrine, but left because of it, you did a very good job. When a lot of people speak against Mormonism they often get details wrong, which only adds to Mormons affirmations that anything they don’t like is just anti-Mormon propaganda. You did very well at presenting the truth of the historical record. I’m not Catholic either, but I am far more Catholic these days than Mormon
I also watched your full debate and enjoyed it. Mormons are very good at coming up with responses to questions, but it doesn’t mean they make sense. Their whole cosmological worldview doesn’t even make sense
@@damnedmadman that wouldn’t be a bad move. I’ve also found Eastern Orthodox Christianity to be quite inspired. Catholics and Orthodox are more in line than most, and have the greatest claims of Christian denominations
Like when Horn quoted a hit piece that said that one of the witnesses 'saw with his spiritual eyes'? That was directly refuted by said witness? Yes, I agree, shoddy work like that makes me think that Horn indeed is either speaking out of ignorance or malice.
Because cartoons is where I get my historical knowledge.... Both Trent and South Park have no clue about that whole story. Truth is found in the details. If you look at all the details of that part of LDS history, and put it in a larger framework, it even _supports_ The BoMormon's authenticity in some ways.
@@namordecai The Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of plagiarisms from the King James Bible. The only Bible that Joseph Smith relied on was the King James Version. This translation was based on a good but imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Scholars now know that this Textus Receptus contained errors, which means the King James Version contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show up in the Book of Mormon. It seems reasonable to assume that if Smith was a prophet of God and was translating the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, he would have known about the errors found in the King James Version, and would have corrected them for when passages from the King James Version appeared in the Book of Mormon. But the errors went in. The “Fullness” of the Gospel? According to a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol. 1, p. 160). But if the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don’t Mormonism’s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God is nothing more than an “exalted man with a body of flesh and bones” appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the “spirit brother” of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum. The Book of Mormon Is Anti-Mormon These heterodox teachings, and many others like them, appear nowhere in the Book of Mormon. In fact, pivotal Mormon doctrines are flatly refuted by the Book of Mormon. For instance, the most pointed refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: “Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’” The Bottom Line The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or archaeological support, and there is overwhelming empirical evidence that refutes it. Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines. This is important because the Latter-day Saints make such a point about it containing the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.” Third, the Book of Mormon abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works. If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use. We read that Jesus “shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1). If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say that Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town. Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C. The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.
😂Absolutely. The song rang in my head throughout the entire video, but especially when the tale of the "new plates" was discussed. How anyone can know the actual history of Mormonism or Scientology and still convert is beyond me.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. Go ahead and roast me. Joseph Smith was a prophet of god. Why would you believe that crazy ghost story! If you want to know something outside the scope of time, space and the physical world then telepathy would be the only option. Telepathy can't be scientifically proven. But 17 million people would say otherwise. It's not telepathy it's called the holy Spirit. And don't tell me it's manipulated intuitive intuition. I have the world's rarest personality type that has the strongest intuitive intuition. You don't question where your own thoughts come from its subconscious, but you will recognize and reject thoughts that are not your own. Until you've had that telepathic/holy experience, then you'll only believe men that "think" they are wise at face value, instead of asking for evidence beyond their intelligence. Which is exactly what Joseph Smith said "go and find out for yourself". That's not what these "experts" would tell you. They say, believe me and go nowhere else, you're crazy if you do.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've read the Book of Mormon. I read the Bible and the Book of Mormon every day. I believe them both to be true. If one reads Ezekiel 37, it tells of two "sticks" (scrolls, records) that will be held in one hand. One stick for Judah ( the Bible) and one stick for Joseph and Ephraim (Book of Mormon). The Book of Mormon tells of the visit of Jesus Christ to the western hemisphere after His resurrection. In beautiful language it tells of Him setting up His church in the Americas and calling 12 Disciples to go and baptize and gain converts. Also, at that visit, He heals the sick, blind & lame, just like He did during His ministry before His death. And there's also an especially touching scene of Jesus blessing the little children one by one, and angels descending and encircling their "little ones" in spiritual fire. I won't take the time to refute the points made by Trent Horn, but many of his arguments are twisted & tweaked to make his point. And it makes me wonder why attack & attempt to destroy the faiths of other Christians? Aren't we all alike to God? Does God not love members if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just as much as Catholics or Lutherans or Baptists? I think He does.❤
"other Christians" People who believe that God the father was a corporeal dude who lived on another planet who became a God (not the eternal infinite immutable transcendent creator of the universe), just one of a multitude of Gods and who just happens to be the God of this planet...That isn't Christian. That's just using Christian themes to tell a space-God fiction. That fact that this Mormon farce has gone on this long, makes me lose faith in humanity altogether. If you can believe in that and that whole story (native Americans were Jews?!!!) you can believe in anything. People are just superstitious and extremely extremely extremely gullible. You shouldn't have to throw your brain in the trash to be a believer. Faith isn't just believing in whatever BS some guy with an overactive imagination and overactive libido conjures up so that he can marry dozens of young women and sleep with other men's' wives. Real faith is grounded in reason.
He added nothing new here. Recently, leading Mormon scholars demonstrated why Trent's arguments here are weak, and he did NOTHING here to address any of that. Very disappointed (and I say this as a devout Catholic and big Trent supporter).
@@catholicdisciple3232 Thanks, great point! Just went to Rome (beautiful culture and history) I really love the catholic people (rich history and architecture)!
Trent: people could memorize entire books in a few weeks Also Trent: redoing the 116 pages was impossible for him This was hard to watch for the numerous wikipedia references with no nuance. If you'd like to doubt, at least do it with the context included.
@@alejandrocanela691 What!? I never knew that! Oh wait, yes I did. So does everyone. Have you ever followed those links? Anyone who does quickly discovers how little they can be trusted for how often they use self-referential materials and dubious sources. Remember that these articles are written by volunteer non-experts from a company that does not disclose its financial or owners. Lastly, it's been an ongoing joke how often anything written about Mormonism is contested and changed. Please go beyond surface-level understanding.
@@yellowblackbird9000 Whoa, is that what he was suggesting?! Lol, I know what he meant. I just find it funny that just a few lines earlier he was saying how it's not unheard of for people to recite oral stories of over 300,000 words and yet it was impossible to redo the portion already written.
There is so much ignorance in here given by this man. I'm Jewish descent born in Monterrey, MEX. I know quite some hebrew and it is such a beautiful feeling reading that Holy Book of Mormon! It brings me back to the truth of who Christ is! Just as the Holy Bible! By the way...."and it came to pass" it's a very Hebraic phrase. It's written to re-engage the readers. The Holy Bible is full of them. Besides by the fruits you shall know them. All Marriot Hotels have a copy of both books. Also the Marriott family are Latter Day Saints. This man "Trent" if he calls himself a Christian he should dedicate his life to proclaim Christ's news and love from his own beliefs and stop attacking others who just believe different than him.
A few questions for you, Trent: If you can dismiss the eyewitness testimony of mormons claiming to have seen miracles due to the witnesses being 'excitable' and 'primed to see miracles', even out of hand dismissing a story of meeting Jesus on the road as being ridiculous on its face, how can you take the alleged eyewitness testimony of the miracles of Jesus seriously? You might say that there is no evidence of the disciples being excitable or easily duped, but if you're not a presuppositionalist you would have to say that their leaving their families to follow a street preacher around is a strong indication that they were. And when it comes to economic incentive: if we assume that the Jesus movement consisted of more than 13 people (the disciples and Jesus himself), then it stands to reason, based on the promises Jesus made to them of their future exalted positions in the kingdom of God (ruling the twelve tribes of Israel) that the twelve disciples held positions of power within the movement. The death of Jesus would then pose a huge threat not only to their belief, but to their social status, to their financial situation, to the entire life that they abandoned their own families to lead. Keeping the movement going with claims of a resurrection seems all but necessary. And if they were indeed the excitable types, they could have convinced themselves of the truth of the resurrection out of sheer desperation. Finally, we turn to the alleged willingness of the disciples to die for their beliefs, which would negate my previous point. Let's be courteous and say that these accounts are historical. Even so, given that the disciples weren't given the opportunity to recant their beliefs (and that we can't know for sure what these beliefs actually were), this amounts to nothing more than religious believers being killed. People of all sorts of religious beliefs are killed all the time, this does not make their beliefs true.
1: Nah; there is not a tom of evidence for them being primed to give specious accounts. Also, you do realize that in 1st Century Judaism, it wouldn’t have been very unusual for a rabbi to hand-pick disciples, right? Now it’s seen as very cultish, but many rabbis had students; this wasn’t seen as strange. It’s debatable how many people followed Christ, but it probably wasn’t very many people based on the fact many of His disciples left Him when He said “eat My Flesh… drink My Blood.” It goes to show that it wasn’t a particularly popular religious group, which, frankly, had its own Leader crucified. Doesn’t sound like a particularly large and wealthy group. Also, you’re making arguments that just don’t make any sense. Let’s be generous and say there were like 20-25 people following Jesus. At best, these were poor 1st century women, beggars, and the sick. Not a very wealthy group. The Apostles did not become rich because, again, Christianity was not followed by the rich Romans but rather persecuted by them. The Apostles would at best have been “scraping by” as St. Paul says in 2 Timothy that he is working as a tent maker. Don’t know about you, but that isn’t a particulary glamorous job. Also, don’t you think it’s much more likely that they just figured that “well Jesus died and He isn’t coming back. Don’t know what I expected.” They had literally *THE* lowest social status in Roman culture and were persecuted harshly and put to death. Also, you’re assuming all of them had families. Some of the older ones did, but it doesn’t make sense to assume all of them did. Even if all of them did, this just works against your point. Who is gonna preach about some random dead guy, leave their wife (St Paul literally kind of complains about not being able to have his wife with him, but accepts it for Christ’s sake.) not sure abt you, but I’d rather go back home to my wife after all that rather than be persecuted horribly for my beliefs that I made up for… uh… kinda looks like your points are specious now, huh? I genuinely don’t understand why you think they would be desperate. It’s far more likely they would have just thought that they had been tricked and gone back to the much easier life they had been leading before. Also, you do realize barely 5% of the Roman empire was Christian by the time of Saint Constantine I in 315, right? In the Apostle’s time it was *maybe 0.005 percent, or 0.05-0.1 to be VERY generous.* Also, your point on their willingness to die flops. First of all, I would make the argument that some of the martyrdoms of the Apostles are most likely later legends, but we have strong or good evidence for the martyrdom of either 5 or 6, can’t remember. Even if we can’t definitely prove that the other 6 apostles were martyred, we do know the Romans and J authorities would have persecuted them very severely, which is enough to make someone who made up a lie for no reason to give it up. Also, you’re completely misunderstanding and mis-stating the point about their deaths. The difference between them and religious believers is that they were in a position to know if the Ressurection of our Savior really happened. Most believers are not in that position. The argument is meant to prove that the apostles were sincere believers in something they were in a position to verify with at least some degree of objectivity. God bless and Christ help us, ☦️❤️
Nicely put. All I can add is that the previous post does not explain why James the brother of Jésus and Saint Paul became leaders of the movement. Neither one of them was a follower of Jésus, so their belief cannot be explained by some kind of reaction to post crucifixion trauma @@womboyeckelstein
You clearly have not researched the eye witnesses accounts. Martin Harris stated he saw the plated like you see a city through a mountain. You are holding on to a very weak part of apprentice evidence. I get it I was Mormon for 38 years. Your here watching this as you know the issues. Just open your mind a little more
@@kenny-gee That still makes the mormon claim stronger than that of the ressurection. The only eyewitness account we have of Jesus after his death is from Paul, whose encounter with Jesus was not explicitly physical.
Two of the Mormon witnesses left while the disciples were tortured and martyred without recanting. One had financial motivation while the disciples received nothing but lost everything. Not comparable.
Number five isn’t even an argument, it’s just an obvious restatement of the premise at hand. If the Catholic Church is true, then the Book of Mormon is false. Okay? Well if the Book of Mormon is true, then the Catholic Church is false. You are just restating the basic question at hand in a silly way. You aren’t going to prove objectively the truthfulness of the Catholic Church with philosophical arguments. This seems very myopic.
There are many historical and logical arguments supporting Catholicism AKA Christianity. For example the fact that someone like Jesus and something like the Catholic Church were prophesied by the OT. And the complete destruction of the Temple and of the whole Mosaic Judaism 40 years after Christ started His public activity only confirms that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. In other words Jesus confirms the Old Testament, which confirms Him and the Church. Nothing like that can be said about Islam and Mormonism.
There is more evidence for the authority of the Catholic Church then the ladder day saints. A apostasy as large as that would go against Jesus promise made in the Bible.
Wish you could have focused a little more on their theological claims which are so obviously in contradiction with what Jesus taught and the Faith the apostles received. Arguing about how well the book is written is irrelevant imo.
That wasn’t the debate though. I think maybe delving more into the Bible contradicting the Book of Mormon would’ve been better. For instance Jesus said you wouldn’t be married in heaven and Mormons whole theology revolves around eternal marriage
@@JJ-zr6fu No, Christ said people wouldn't be 'given in marriage' - if you look at the underlying Greek, that means that people won't be "getting married" in heaven. Christ didn't say people won't be married.
@@OntheOtherHandVideos Matt 22:29-30, like 20:34-38 they will not marry or be given in marriage, but will be made like the angels in heaven. Now only if you believe that the angels in heaven are married could you refute this claim..... But we know that they aren't married, not even sure there are female angels.... That's why they rebelled and came down to earth to mate with women. If someone believes in families in heaven it probably goes against what Jesus said. And Jesus also said if you believe in marriage after the resurrection you do not know scripture. And if anyone claims otherwise they are strictly going against Christ's word.
@@jawnatutorow Um, again as I said, look into anyone who addresses the underlying Greek. As for: "That's why they rebelled and came down to earth to mate with women" Again, I would suggest you look into what people who understand the underlying Greek and Hebrew actually say that said verses say, rather than bizarre and detached theories predicated on weird English interpretations and assumptions.
@@OntheOtherHandVideos Well the Greek seems to be saying the same thing... Luke 20:34-35 said the worthy sons of the resurrection NEITHER marry or are given in marriage. It's repeated a few times, likely so men won't twist scripture. Even if you look past Gen 6 and simply go off what Jesus says, it's clear he's saying there is no marriage for the worthy in the resurrection. And he specifically says we are made like the angels..... Now, we should be able to, in context, understand they aren't married either. Unless we twist a word or two here and there..... But the context of the whole verse is.... There's no marriage in the resurrection.
I saw the debate with Jacob Hansen, I thought Hansen was extremely rude during the cross-examination because he would ask you a question and would cut you off after only a couple of words. I liked how you allowed him to respond to your questions with complete answers. Also, having been Mormon (now Catholic), Jacob wasn't truthful about the Great Apostacy. Read "Preach my Gospel" the book mormon missionaries use to teach non-mormons, Jacob wasn't being truthful.
@@ryrylamby sure, re-read again what Jesus says: "given" in marriage is getting married. It does not mean about staying in whatever earthly marriage people had. And nowhere in the Bible Jesus talks about the future of earthly marriages. So, before suggesting that someone read scriptures, do so yourself.
That debate was wild! I nwver thought the mormon guy would attack the validity of the scriptures to try to bring them down to the level of the BoM. Literally said the accounts from scripture are less reliable than the accounts of mormon apostates. Unbelievable.
@@thekolobsociety No Trent explained the differences over and over again. He and you just didnt accept them…..sad to see mormons rejecting the evidence for scripture so they can keep this “standard” its like this: lots of good evidence for events in scripture and some poor evidence for things in scripture. You reject all evidence for scripture since there’s no evidence for the BoM. That’s the double standard not the atheistic mindset of “if there isn’t perfect evidence for every event mentioned it must be false” instead, you guys just say “if exodus has poor evidence, and the BoM has poor evidence, then if we are to believe exodus, we must believe the BoM. It’s so illogical its comical. What about thee historical accuracy of Luke and Acts? What about archaeology confirming events and places in scripture with extreme accuracy such as the 3 minted coins produced in the time of Pontius Pilate? The best you guys have is hoping a lost jewish society will be found in south america? Also the most laughable part of the debate was when trent got into the word count. 268,000 words would not fit on 10 tablets in english, hebrew, egyptian, or aramaic or what any conceivable combination of those languages constitutes the made up language of “reformed egyptian”. The Egyptian book of the dead could never fit on 10 or so tablets in orthodox egyptian. It’s english translation is 44,000 words. The BoM is 6 times that in volume! Wake up bros!
@@thekolobsociety Even non-Christian historians document the thousands of Christian witnesses who were martyred as a testament to the Truth of their faith!! Mormons only have one guy (with a warrant for his arrest for Ordering a riot/printing press burning) who died in a shootout! LOL!
@@timboslice980 You should take a look at Jerry Grover's lengthy analysis of a small set of "Caractors" copied from the plates. His proposed translation could be completely false, but I think the heavy amount of research shows that the text of the Book of Mormon can easily fit on the plates that Joseph had using something like hieratic and demotic scripts.
You should mention not only the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy but also that he practiced polyandry. The LDS Church, in its Gospel Topics Essays, has even admitted that Smith practiced polyandry. I suspect that polyandry will make even more of an impact on people than polygamy.
@@eucharistenjoyer Yes. The Mormons used to deny it but now they are obliged to admit it because of the evidence. His followers also practiced polyandry, including P P Pratt, who was killed by the husband of the woman he married. Smith and Young, etc., were a bunch of low-lifes.
At the very least, there are many more OT and NT sites and artifacts that you can visit, see in person, or see online. Show me 1 verified site or relic from the Book of Mormon.
I’ve read the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon. And have my own experience with each text. Problem is people want to trust others to do their learning for them. (Trent’s obviously got it all figured out in this quick video) The Bible is amazing. The Quran denies Jesus his divinity. The Book of Mormon is a spiritual book. And contrary to what Trent and Twain said, has many beautiful and strong spiritual passages. But you’d just want to believe Trent right? It’s easier to let someone else do your learning for you. You really ought to read all three and make up your mind from your own experience. I mean someone who posits, “Catholicism is true, therefore Mormonism is false.” has some real logical flaws in that statement. But again most humans just want the easy route and to be told what to believe instead of getting it from God. Seek and ye shall find my friends. Or did He say “Follow Trent and ye shall find.”
I bet there's a lot more credit you give to Mormonism than Catholicism, and there's a LOT more Trent has posted here on this channel which shows that Catholicism is true. That sentence isn't a full logical argument, you're right, it's just the conclusion of said logical argument. I invite you to see more of the fundamental arguments for Christianity, because although I don't know you personally, I doubt you alone can fully understand geniusly all 3 religions and be the judge above them.
@@bikesrcool_1958 he may as weII have d0ne the pIeth0ra 0f den0minati0ns iIIustrates that there are as many christian d0ctrines as there are christians, trying t0 recreate g0d in their image and they aII arr0gantIy cIaim every0ne eIse is wr0ng "f0II0w the g0urd" n0 " f0II0w the sh0e" fr0m pyth0n`s "Iife 0f Brian" is the hist0ry 0f christianiy in a nutsheII jumping 0n the internet bandwag0n, Iike it has, exp0ses the I0ng heId agenda t0 gain c0ntr0I and the c0nstant divisi0n 0ver minutae am0ngst christians, the den0minati0naI infighting and charIatan pr0sperity g0speII0rs n0w 0n view 24/7 highIight the reaI impact 0f m0dern "0nIine christianity"; c0ntr0I and divisi0n
1. So, you're saying the evidence is scant, but faith is the belief of things that are true that cannot be seen. Okay, first point debunked. Next. 2. There is a long contiguous history of a literate human civilization with recorded history maintained by the Etruscans, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Europeans. No such contiguous civilization existed in the Americas to record and maintain such a record. This argument facile and baseless. You expect a non-existent contiguous civilization to provide a record as proof? Again, your logic is flawed. We aren't commanded to believe in God by proofs, but by faith, and the words of the prophets. We have prophets, we have them in the same order an manner laid out in antiquity. Christ appointed Apostles, where are your apostles? The apostolic calling did not end after Christ was ascended. Paul is proof of that, as are the other apostles called to replace those who fell. I ask again, where are the apostolic officers that CHRIST appointed? You will find them in one church only. His church, restored by Joseph Smith under the divine direction of the only true head of the Church, Jesus Christ. 3. Joseph Smith DID NOT prophecy that Christ would return in the 19th century. He was not speaking prophetically, he stated an opinion. Prophets are not perfect. Moses struck a stone to bring forth water, rather than commanding it, and for his disobedience he was not allowed to set foot in the promised land. That Joseph Smith's speculations proved unreliable is not a failed test of his calling. It's interesting, you say he can't be a prophet because his speculations aren't prophetic, but his prophecies don't count because other people were speculating the same thing. Yet Joseph Smith did state where the war would start, accurately. I notice you ignore that point, or perhaps you were unaware of it. You also conflate the phrase that "war will be poured out on all nations," as meaning the Civil War would draw all nations into it. That wasn't the prophecy, only that the Civil War would begin a period when war would be poured out on all nations. And indeed global conflicts and wars flared out of control for decades after the Civil War, culminating in the GREAT WAR, as WWI was known, just 50 years after the start of the Civil War. Sounds like "war poured out on the whole world" to me. Here's a list of all the wars between the Civil War and the start of WWI American Civil War (1861-65) War of the Triple Alliance (1864/65-70) Seven Weeks’ War (1866) Selangor Civil War (1867-73) Franco-German War (1870-71) Acehnese War (1873-1904) Red River Indian War (1874-75) Serbo-Turkish War (1876-78) Anglo-Zulu War (1879) War of the Pacific (1879-83) Gun War (1880-81) Sino-French War (1883-85) Serbo-Bulgarian War (1885-86) Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) Spanish-American War (1898) Philippine-American War (1899-1902) South African War (1899-1902) The War of a Thousand Days (1899-1903) Acehnese War (1873-1904) Philippine-American War (1899-1902) South African War (1899-1902) The War of a Thousand Days (1899-1903) Boxer Rebellion (1900-01) Moro Wars (1901-13) Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) Pig War (1906-09) Mexican Revolution (1910-20) Italo-Turkish War (1911-12) World War I (1914-18) Your understanding of the Godhead is, by your own reasoning, fundamentally flawed. Prior to the Nicene Creed, there were sects in the early church who believed God the Father and Jesus Christ were distinct personages, and both were gods, but that God the father was supreme. This was known as the Aryan creed. Further, the Hebrew word, Elohim is a plural, the singular being Eloah. This caused a schism in the church, among other things, which caused a council to be convened, where the issue was not fully resolved, necessitating another council, where the issue was put to a VOTE! And from it we got the convoluted mess of the triune Godhead where Christ, in Gethsemane did not want to partake of the bitter cup, but said that he would not do his own will but his will because he's God and God is him, and he had to pray to God (himself) to take the cup away, but said, he would do God's will, his will, even though he didn't want to. And you think Mormons are confused. Sorry, but Arius of Alexandria had a better understanding of the nature of God than does modern Christianity. Oh, and please show me the exact passage of scripture that says that doctrine (the word and mind of God) will be determined democratically. When did that change from Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" Where is the verse that says that changed to a vote by council, canonical or apocryphal? As to the King Follet sermon, that is a third hand account of what was heard by someone who related it to another person who then told it to a third. It is not doctrine. We do believe that, as children of God, we have a divine inheritance, and that doctrine is born out in John's revelations in the Book of revelations, where the talks about degrees of glory. You're right, of course, man cannot become God anymore than you can become your father, but you can become A father. Why is this so inconceivable to you? Your claim about the plates is speculative and conjecture, not factual, since you've never seen them. Without the ability to physically see them and collect information on the density of the script, or the process by which the translation occurred, this is a matter of sine qua non. It's a non argument. And the last nail in your coffin for this argument. You lied. Joseph Smith did not die in a shoot out. He was murdered by a mob of 150-200 men. His brother was murdered, and . If you have to lie to make your argument, it's invalidated by the very act. The record of the attack on the jail and the events that occurred are well documented. Joseph Smith. Further, Joseph and Hyrum were promised safety and a fair trial and returned to the custody of Governor Ford. These facts are well documented and verifiable. So either you're lying, or couldn't be bothered to research the events. Either way, your argument that this proves he is a false prophet falls flat. By that reason, every single one of the Apostles were liars and false prophets, as was Christ himself, who was also falsely imprisoned, tried, and executed at the whim of a mob. 4. The argument against New Testament passages in the Book of Mormon. This is answered in one simple statement. "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16. I trust I don't have to tell you who said it. Christ literally says he is going to gather other sheep to himself. Do you think He taught them a different Gospel? Of course not, so why are you surprised to find the same Gospel in the Book of Mormon when the author of that Gospel is the same. 5. Catholicism is true. How? Shall we dive into the wars it financed, the atrocities committed from the papal seat, the child pope, the orgies in the Vatican, or the more recent scandal of pedophilia in the church? Shall we talk about how the nature of the priesthood was changed from priests being married as a requirement of the priesthood, to their celibacy to protect the church's coffers? If that's not enough, the catholic church, not it's members, is an institution that has a long dark history of assassination and power and corruption that invalidates the validity of the church's divine mandate. Its central tenets are derived from vote, not prophetic revelation, as set forth by God. But none of that matters. NONE OF IT. For we do not know these things through our feeble and flawed reasoning. When the Christ addressed his Apostles and asked of them, Who am I, this is how they answered. "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for FLESH AND BLOOD HAT NOT REVEALED IT UNTO THEE, but MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Matthew 16:15-17 You use reason, but I have asked God, the FATHER of Christ and us all. And I have received that same witness that Simon received. That Christ is the Son of the Living God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His church. It was restored by his prophet, Joseph Smith, a man who was, like Saul of Tarsus, flawed, but nonetheless called by Christ to build his kingdom. Now you have your reason, and your flawed logic, and the lies of the devil. I have the assurance of my faith and my prayers answered by a loving father in heaven, even God the father, And I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ. Because after all is said and done, not your word, not mine. Nor your logic or your reason or your arguments, nor mine, can stand against the Son of God or the Father. I have faith in Christ, that he will separate the wheat from the tares. And trust his judgment more than yours, with all due respect.
Hey there, new subscriber! Thank you for your videos on Mormonism. I'm in OCIA and am a Partridge. I truly appreciate your shout out on the ecclesiastical abuse of my x3 great aunts Emily Dow and Eliza Maria. When one looks into it, the Mormon prophet treated his first Bishop like absolute dirt, blamed him for all kinds of issues, so I appreciate your work letting others know about that piece of it. The story is heartbreaking and fascinating for me. Being kin, I read their histories and can almost feel them crying from Heaven. Abuse. You are very fair and come across in a loving, knowledgeable manner. Can't thank you enough, super glad I came across your site. God Bless!
The argument that Joseph Smith was just a simple uneducated farm boy and couldn’t have made up something as complex as the Book of Mormon is obvious nonsense, there is a difference between being uneducated and being stupid, Smith was well read and familiar with the Bible, with a little creativity he could easily create a complex work. John Bunyan was uneducated but Pilgrim’s Progress is very complex, ditto with Shakespeare.
True, he was uneducated yet intelligent. However, the naturalistic explanation still seems to explain the data less than the divine explanation in terms of the translation.
@@ItsSnagret there is no evidence that it even is a translation, the argument against its being so that each character would have to represent 80 words seems powerful
@@ItsSnagret The divine explanation is that God helped him, and he got it completely wrong. That's not a good explanation. In fact it seems borderline blasphemous.
@@ItsSnagrethe copied from other books of his time so all Joseph Smith needs is to be is someone who changes a few names and places from other books: that's something even Smith could do .
Questions Trent needs to answer in order to intelligently accept his premise that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent. 1. Joseph Smith recited the Book of Mormon. Recited from what? How many books would he need to memorize? Is it reasonable to believe that he strung multiple books together and created an original piece. 2. How did Joseph Smith afford metal or brass plates and how did he masterfully piece it all together when we have no record of him knowing how to do that. Kinderhook was only a couple of small cheap, easy to make plates, Joseph had at least several dozen that was felt by a handful of people. 3. If Joseph and friends had demonic visitations, why on Earth would Satan want people to have a close covenental relationship with Christ, reject abortion, strengthen families, and have amazing fruits? 4. What evidence would it take for you to become a Mormon? Why would that be enough or not enough? 5. If you care so much about apostles leaving the Church as a standard of truth, why would you accept Elisha, when Gehazi betrayed him, or Jesus when Judas betrayed him? Or many of the Sons of Isreal who were annointed as leaders who saw miracles yet turned away. Martin and Oliver came back. Why would you worry about their decisions as an indicator of their testimonies, but not the ones in the Bible.
@jacobsamuelson3181 if you study the historical context of Joseph’s environment and that of the ancient Americas you see how Joseph wrote the book and that it’s fully made up. That’s the claim now test the hypothesis. The problem with most lds is they get their information on these topics from other lds apologists so their focus is so narrow and they miss why the actual experts in the field say there is no reputable evidence and why Lamanites and jaredites are not taught in school.
Wrong. If you consider the whole of the evidence, Trent's points would still stand regardless and provide sufficient reason to be skeptical of Mormonism. What evidence would it take for you to reject Mormonism?
The dude literally looked into a hat and made the whole thing up. Then he started a cult and slept with other men's wives. This isn't hard. Thousands upon thousands of authors have come up with much better stories in much less time and even on their worst day were much more virtuous.
Trent says explicitly that “Man can’t become God” at 8:50 I wish he said that in a more nuanced manner because one of the most famous quotes in the Church Fathers is “God became man, so that MAN MIGHT BECOME GOD” St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Theosis/Deification is Catholic dogma. This must be distinguished from Mormon doctrine, because God was not once a man, and theosis doesn’t entail the saints becoming God in such a way where there is no real distinction or merely a modal distinction between them and the divine essence, but it is still accurate to say that the saints become God. They “partake of the divine nature” and at the end of time God will “be all in all.”
I would disagree. I think Trent’s statement is completely reasonable, especially with the context he is working with (Mormons believing that the greatest of Mormons will become gods like God). Additionally, you and I’m sure everyone else understood what Trent meant when he said “man cannot become God,” (because of the context) however, when you explained St. Athanasius’s point from On the Incarnation, you yourself had to insert nuance to explain what he meant. Also, I would err on saying the saints become God, only because it’s unhelpful, not because it’s not true. First, it confuses people who do not know the context. Second, St. Athanasius’s words are better translated as “so that man might become deified.” The Greek word he uses (theopoiethomen) that we translate as “God” is more related with the idea of participation in, rather than becoming God. And this idea is more cohesive with the theological contexts you use, “divine partakers” and “God will be all in all” from 1 Corinthians 15.
God the Father is a Man. God the Son is a Man. God the Spirit is a Man. God didn't become a man, or used to a man - He is and always has been a man in form and likeness in every way. We were created in His image. Some get bent out of shape when the truth that God is a man is pronounced, but they already believe the Son is a man - and that the Son is God. So it is illogical to think the Son is a different type of being than His father - it contradicts everything we know. Like father, like son.
Been a fan of your channel for a while and I appreciate your thoughtful approach. An interesting thing occurred to me this time, in that you are in the Bart Ehrman role. When Catholics and Protestants debate, they agree that the Bible is true, and it comes down to which interpretation is right. When Bart debates Christians, they are frustrated because he knows a lot about the Bible but doesn't accept its divine origin. So it's not really a debate because the two don't agree on the data. So how can you prove the Bible is true? In this case, you don't accept the Book of Mormon as having a divine origin, and so the same question arises, "How can one know if a certain book of Scripture has a divine origin?" For both the Bible and the Book of Mormon the answer, as far as I can tell, is that unless the Holy Spirit convicts of us of the truth of the book in question we will never know for sure, and debates are useless to resolve the issue.
Let's start with how John Smith used his cult to benefit himself, as he was a cult leader. Or how John Smith contradicted the bible several times. Or how he obviously mixed free masonry with gnostic beliefs to make mormonism. Or how his "book of Abraham" was actually the ancient Egyptian scroll of the "book of life." Unrelated to Abraham entirely. It's not even remotely close to arguing from the position of Bart erman. The New Testament is written by early Christians, a religion that was heavily persecuted and yet quickly spread. None of the leaders benefited from their position, in fact Paul lost power and wealth. The new testament does not contradict, it fulfills the old. Not comparable.
There's a key difference. Jesus and the Church fulfill many messianic prophecies and prefigurations from the Old Testament (and are supposed to fulfill the remaining ones), which gives credibility to both the Old and New Testament. Of these prophecies, the ones which predict the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews are perhaps the most convincing. Also the eradication of the Temple Judaism in 70 AD, about 40 years since Christ started teaching, and the mentions in Talmud (sic!) about all Yom Kippur sacrifices being rejected since that time, as if God gave them 40 years to make up their minds - that's something to consider. So even if Jesus didn't actually say that prophecy about the complete destruction of the Temple, the fact that it happened in 70 AD adds a strong argument for the actual establishment of the New Covenant. That's because 40 years is how long the Israelites were wandering from Egypt into the Promised Land. In 30 AD they started leaving it...
@@emouselOregon But that doesn't help when you are trying to convert someone who isn't already Catholic. How can an atheist come to faith? I suggest that it is only through the Holy Spirit. They must pray and learn for themselves that (1) God exists and hears and answers prayers and (2) what we read about Jesus in the scriptures is true -- that He is our savior.
@@rockweirdo8147 It sounds like you are getting your information from a bad source (there are lots of those). That's always been the case with the Lord's servants; see Acts 28:22, for instance. If you really want to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet you need to read the Book of Mormon yourself and ask God in prayer if it is true.
It wasn’t his best but it’s understandable Mormons are off by themselves and don’t really expose themselves to debate. Trent should’ve used an ex Mormon for debate prep
The problem with the debate was the limited time and scope. The debate was about the book of Mormon, not Mormonism itself. Trent did an admirable job while honoring the debate topic and format. Jacob came across as being focused on winning the debate rather than changing opinions.
@@JJ-zr6fu Is this a joke? Which Catholics are looking for debate partners? Which ones will after seeing how Trent argued against an unprovable position?
@@emouselOregon They picked a topic that is literally unprovable and put the burden of proof on Jacob, and you think it would have gone better if it was on Mormonism??
Now replace the words Joseph Smith with Muhammad, Book of Mormon with Quran and some other relevant terms and you could publish the same video about Islam. Even the part about the wives lmao just replace 14 with 6
@@MoonMoverGaming Bro that's absolutely what I was talking about good thing you corrected me now these two cults have absolutely nothing in common anymore
OM Lord Trent! I was waiting for it ! Thanks Sr.❤ the debate was so hard for me to watch 😢 as a former LDS I was shocked how they still make so annoying to cover up all of mess it is since in the beginning of the Mormonism.
@@Lovecatholicfaith Christianity was a mess too early in its history…. And later for that matter, with the split of the east and west, schism of the Church of England, and reformation in general. Most Christians don’t care about their mess because it happened so long ago.
@@GldnClaw hard to prove that Mormon are a huge lie ! It’s hard to talk to someone who is so much brainwashed and trying everything to prove something that is not real. I was LDS for 35 years! Went to e every single stages in it ! Seminary teacher, institute teacher, templo endowment , relief society president, counselor of primary and so on. Please, please don’t think you can erased from mim all of this knowledge that I received there. Please be respectful. Trent was not LDS and for sure he had a hard time to argue with a LDS . But ex Mo will not have this problem at all.
@@Lovecatholicfaith I don't have to erase any knowledge from you, looks like you're doing it all yourself. Rule 1 of Ex-Mos: You can leave the Church, but you can't leave it alone.
Also with chariots, there is no evidence native Americans used wheels, or that wheels even would've been helpful given much of central America's mountainous terrain.
The word "wheel" does not occur in the Book of Mormon, so this is somewhat of a Strawman. Since the Hebrew word most often translated as "chariot" in the Old Testament and the Egyptian hieroglyph is used for both wheeled and unwheeled conveyances, is not reasonable to assume that Book of Mormon chariots must wheeled.
@@brettmajeske3525there’s no geographical information or archaeological evidence that backs up Mormonism here in the Americas. He claims Indians were Jewish descendants well we know that’s false for example. No evidence Indians practiced the Mormon religion historically at all before the time of Joseph Smith. He’s the American Mohammad nothing more. Baseless claims and a false prophet
@@catholicguy1073 Evidence of horses in the Americas that predate Columbus was found about six months ago. Anachronisms like this in the BoM have been accounted for dozens of times. The presence of horses or chariots does not disprove the historicity of the BoM.
@@nasquamastudios Joseph Smith As A Monotheist There are three major stages in the development of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of Deity. The earliest stage is represented by the Book of Mormon (1830), the Book of Moses (1830-31), and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (1833). Many passages from these early works of Joseph Smith reveal his belief in monotheism. Here are a few of the numerous examples: Book of Mormon, Alma 11:26-28 “And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God. And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.” The Book of Mormon ‘Testimony of the Three Witnesses’ Preface: “And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.” Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible Isaiah 44:6,8 (left unchanged): “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer, the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” The Book of Moses, Moses 1:6: “And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of my Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.” Now many Mormons have tried their best to harmonize and rationalize the monotheistic passages in the Book of Mormon with Joseph’s later teaching of the plurality of Gods, by saying while there are many Gods, “there is only one God with whom we have to do, or whom we worship”. But in light of the JST version of Isaiah 44:8 (“Is there a God beside me? yea, There is no God; I know not any”) and a number of other passages like Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-22; 46:9, it’s hard to argue this position. Joseph Smith as a “Binitarian” In 1834-35, during the Kirtland, Ohio period, Joseph Smith made a major departure from the Book of Mormon emphasis on the Father and Son as the same person. While still apparently maintaining there is only one God (monotheism), he began to teach there are two persons within the Godhead - the Father and the Son. Theologians call this “binitarianism.” This second stage in Joseph’s teaching regarding Deity is found in the Doctrine and Covenants “Lectures on Faith”: Lectures on Faith, Lecture Five: There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made . . . They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made and fashioned like unto man. Lectures on Faith, Lecture Five (question and answer section) Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead? A. Two: the Father and the Son. According to the Lectures on Faith, the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit (the two terms were not distinguished at this stage), is not a person, but is the shared ‘mind’ of the Father and Son. Joseph Smith As A Polytheist The Book of Abraham, first published in 1842, represents the fourth and final stage of Joseph Smith’s developing doctrine of Deity. Here, for the first time, Joseph spells out in no uncertain terms the doctrine of the plurality of Gods: Book of Abraham 4:2-3 “And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate . . . and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light.” Expressions such as “the Gods called,” “the Gods ordered,” and “the Gods prepared” occur 45 times in Abraham 4-5. And directly related to the doctrine of the plurality of Gods is Joseph’s teaching that Heavenly Father is an exalted man who Himself has a Father, and whose Father has a Father, ad infinitum. In a June 16, 1844 sermon recorded in the History of the Church, Joseph described this new understanding that there are many Gods and that Heavenly Father is Himself the offspring of a more ancient Deity: Joseph Smith’s King Follet Discourse (History of the Church, vol. 6) “I want to reason a little on this subject (that God himself has a father). I learned it by translating the (Book of Abraham) papyrus that is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven . . . If Abraham reasoned thus - If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also.”
He did seem upset during the debate. This may just be because Jacob seems so happy compared to everyone else he seemed upset by comparison. I’ve also noticed all of his newer thumbnails have him making very serious or grumpy faces lol
First of all, I'm not a Mormon. 1 - critiquing the fact that Smith wasn't educated. As if God only works with highly educated people. 2- critiquing repetitive phrases, which actually have Hebrew ties of you know your linguistics. 3- Pointing out that humans are imperfect. As if God only works with perfect people. 4- Critiquing geographical references. As if God would only work with people (Native Americans) who keep great historic/geographic records. 5- Artifacts of Horses and chariots have been found from before the Spanish brought some over. I was just watching a documentary about horses that said the north American horses existed long before European settlers came. The documentary was on Native Americans and had no Mormon ties. 6- Critiquing Smith because he wasn't a perfect person again. Surely God wouldn't work with imperfect people. 7- Critiquing the idea that God would help someone translate a language unknown to the reader. As if God is unable to do that. 8- Making claims about Smith running for political office (horror of horrors?) and that Smith had multiple wives. There is NO actual EVIDENCE to support the idea that Smith supported polygamy. He actively preached against it and his actual wife, Emma always said that the idea was evil. If Smith had other wives, where the heck are the children from these unions? The multiple wives trash was pushed by Brigham Young after Smiths death. Read "The exoneration of Joseph and Emma" for additional evidence. 9- "I don't like it" isn't convincing proof for or against the truth of something. Many people claim the Bible is just retold myths. Guess the Bible isn't true then? What a weak argument. Also, independent (non Mormon) linguists have studied the language patterns of the book, and determined that many different people wrote the books. Maybe parts of the Book of Mormon appear similar because it claims the same message of salvation of the Bible. Also, the king James Bible has a lot of language that was modern in that day. 10- Joseph Smith wasn't the first one to claim that Jewish people came to America before Euro people did.... So what? The book of Mormon isn't a complete record of people in the new world. So what? 11- Some other church guys said the Book of Mormon is false. Oh, I guess I'll just believe those guys instead of these other guys. I'll focus on how imperfect those guys are and ignore how imperfect that these guys are. I'm hearing a lot of reasons that we should limit what God can do because of how weak humans are. I don't limit what God can do. I'm also NOT reading any reasons why the theological contents of the Book of Mormon clash with Christianity. Whenever I ask "What is something in the Book of Mormon that conflicts with Christian theology?" I never get an answer. People start pointing to LDS beliefs that aren't in the Book of Mormon or even in the D&C from before Smith was killed. They can point to nothing within the actual BOM.
If people have never told you the contradiction with the Bible and Christianity you never talk with truth Christian apologist, the first lie that you are not Mormon please give me a break
@@YiriUbic3793 I would love to see you put two chapters (not singular vrs) up form the bible and the book of Mormon and tell me were they contradict make sure to exclude interpolations . Good luck. Yeah he's saying he's not LDS or Mormon because there is about 200k people that art trinitarian that read the book of Mormon and believe it. Not sure how you define "mormon"
@@YiriUbic3793 I've literally gone and looked up multiple essays and videos on supposed contradictions over the last 10 years. Also, claiming I'm somehow a Mormon does not disprove anything I said.
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christs of Latter Day Saints I am so grateful for your faith! Hopefully we all can do our best to share the bible and the most important story that has ever been told, the story of our Lord Jesus Christ! Praise God there is so much good in the world. Please continue to share love, kindness and faith in Jesus Christ. Please pray each day, Your Father in Heaven loves your perfectly and wants you to speak to Him! Serve as much as possible, give to the poor and lift your communities! God is good.
You seem like a very nice person, but you are serving a false Jesus. And that’s a problem because the word tells us what happens to people who follow false Christs. I hope you find that soon.
Great video. My only feedback is you should have called out Jacob for all the lying he did in the debate. He literally used the word bullseye to describe the NHM discovery when nothing could be further from the truth. He also claimed without citing any source, that "we now know in the 20th century that King Zedekiah had a son named Mulek", he totally made this up. He also lied about Hebrew names "only mentioned in the Book of Mormon being discovered". You let him get away with a lot of grand claims that no respectable LDS apologist would be caught dead making.
Haha, and do tell, what of Horn repeatedly quoting the refuted hitpeice against one of the witnesses that 'he saw the plates with spiritual eyes', that that witness himself refuted in his day as soon as the hitpeice was published? Jacob quoted this refutation, and then Horn quoted the refuted claim, Jacob called him out on it, and Horn doubled down on that refuted claim again here. Is Horn ignorant, deaf, or malicious?
It's a religious scam, the Mormon church/corporation, big time. Easy to investigate though as they're but 2/3centuries old, and already being found out for their false claims.... Their very scholars and church leaders attest to these falsehoods... They have this mantra that they impose their underling missionaries to chant and repeat, yet at the back of these leaders' minds, they have already stumbled upon the plagiarism and revisionism of their false gospel, and that their religion started as a criminal organisation (and could well still be, due to deception tactics and fraud).....Praying for these realisations to reach down and sideways through our Mormon brothers and sisters, including those who are still very brainwashed. That is, even if some of them might still be beholden and attached to the mormon set of beliefs. They'll hopefully get there. I've pals who are married to no-longer-practicing Mormons... The latter stick it out yet (not being struck from the mormon records) due to practical reasons. Their clients are all Mormons. This church has a closely knit market and commercial custom....Until the very clients themselves start to drop off from the church.
@@fightingfortruth9806 😂 you don’t even know the facts of the Inquisition. Go get educated please. Give me a break Which one are you talking about. If I had to guess it’s the Spanish one and it was the monarchy that did the punishment not the Church. It was the Church that gave people the ability to defend themselves, did something novel at the time to challenge their accuser. Gave the ones who were found guilty of heresy the ability to repudiate it and reject there heresies. The ones who refused the state passed judgment. Get real man. You’re using 21st norms to pass judgement on people who existed hundred of years before you.
As a former atheist, when I was made known of The Existence of God, I never thought for one moment to look into Mormonism or Muslim. I knew that were not The Church Our Lord and Savior established. They both sounded wrong from the jump. As Forrest so eloquently said "That's all I got to say about that."
I would liek to note i believe horses were in the Americas before brought over from the old world. The ones in America were hunted to extinction long before Eurasian horses were brought over but did exist.
yeah, I can't find any archaeological evidence for that. Best I see are native american stories of horses, and bones of three horses, dating back to the late 1600s with Spanish heritage.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 that makes sense it's more paleontology than archeological. Look up equus scotti . They would have went extinct about 10,000 years ago. Most of the noth American mega fanna was hunted to extinction with the exception of the Buffalo.
I like the majority of these arguments, and I believe the Book of Mormon is false and their prophet is false, but the argument about "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church" really carries no weight in this context, as their counter argument would be that the gates of hell haven't prevailed against the church. If you characterize what they see as a falling away and eventual regathering as the gates of hell prevailing against the church, then you'd also have to characterize Christ's death as the gates of hell prevailing against Christ.
By saying that the church went apostate & disappeared from the earth for 1900 years until Joseph Smith returned it is in itself saying the gates of hell prevailed against the church. To say that the gates of hell did not disappear from earth at any time since Pentecost, which occurred after Jesus’ crucifixion, is to affirm that the Catholic Church has never stopped spreading the truth, which means that no denomination or group outside the Catholic Church is teaching 💯 truth, which means my denomination is false too; I don’t like it, & it’s very painful to me, but logic demands that answer. I’m not sure if you’re doing mental gymnastics because you don’t want to come to that same conclusion, which is understandable, or if you don’t understand that scripture verse. Either way, if you do want the truth, then pray 🙏🏼 & ask God specifically to show you the answer to which church is the true church. To learn the teachings of the Catholic Church check out “The Catechism in a Year with Fr Mike Schmitz” & the “Divine Mercy Official” channel & the playlists ‘Living Divine Mercy TV (EWTN)’ & ‘Explaining the Faith with Fr Chris Alar’ for longer explanations
This is a very honest assessment. The other problem is that "Prevail" as seen as a final event rather than a process. There is plenty of evidence that the gates of hell have prevailed in the modern day. The meaning of prevail has remained ambiguous.
@@HaleStorm49Mormonism the reinterpretation of the Bible is what's your problem. Jesus words are God's words and you all are in idolatry worshipping a pagan Godhead of an infinite regression and men becoming gods which means your Heavenly Father had to have Godparents to birth him as a man who became Exalted to Godhood . Unless you believe Heavenly Father created himself which is illogical.
Very well presented video. We are 60-year life-long Mormons with Utah pioneer ancestry, decended from famous Mirmons such as Oliver Cowdry, Martin Harris and Eliza R. Snow... over the past 3 years we went through an awakening and faith crises learning that everything we deeply believed in, sacrificed for, trusted in [and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to over our lifetime] was all a deception. Its been devestating and traumatic to lose our identity, spiritual home, and community [we were branded "apostate" and have been completely shunned for no longer believing]. Anyway, we enjoyed your presentation. We respectfully do not agree with your argument that Mormonism is false because "Catholicism is true". There is overwhelming evidence one could present to "doubt Catholicism." 😅 However, we mean no disrespect for your devotion and desire no contention. What matters is that we can agree that Mormonism is false and Joseph Smith was a gifted con man and false prophet. Thanks to the explosion of digital information and ability to fact-check any truth claims, there is a mass exodus of members happening. Of course the Corporate LDS Church has amassed so much wealth and hidden billions, plus vast property holdings, it will continue to perpetuate its lies. It will keep growing in disadvantaged nations - currently booming in African countries. But the best and brightest scholars, foundational families, core membership in USA, Canada, and across Europe are abandoning ship. The Church is a shell of its former glory. All that used to be so wonderful from our youth - the activities, scouting, dances, parties, roadshows, and social aspects creating strong community bonding - has all withered away and has been stripped away. One last point to add regarding BoM. It was always said to be the "keystone of our religion" and a "record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas" but recently prophets and apostles are now saying it "shouldn't be considered a history book" and trying to walk back past claims which is in direct contradiction to JSmith and a century of past prophet leader claims. Godspeed, friend!
Agreed! As in the debate you can see some of these points refuted (like Horn's quoting of a hit-piece on a witness that the witness himself refuted). Makes you wonder why Horn left in a many times debunked claim . . .
Mormonism and Christianity are equally justified, as the foundation for each rests on the unfalsifiable claim of a god that can do magic. Given this foundation, the only reasonable position is atheism. BOO-YAH!
@@jameshojnowski8455 two things lol one I'm on your side I agree with what you're saying, I was replying to that first comment about Jesus not being God. I was trying to say that God was never mortal because even when he came down in human form he conquered death. Second, I'm not sure if this answer is right, but Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus didn't raise himself. And eventually he did in fact die after that. Jesus raised from the dead but then didn't die after, he ascended into heaven. Does that make sense? I hope that helped answer your question
Ask the Mormons, who are polytheists, for the exegesis of Isaiah 43:10. Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. kJV
David Whitmer’s life was in danger from zealous members of the church who wanted to harm him. The lord told him to leave. This isn’t difficult to understand.
The idea that there is "no archeological evidence for the BoM" is simply false, as Jacob Hansen explained in reference to the old world archeology that lines up SHOCKINGLY well with the events described in the BoM (Nahom, Ishmael's grave, Bountiful in modern day Oman, etc.). We may not know exactly where the BoM events took place in the new world, but that's not reason to just entirely dismiss the historical claims of the BoM, especially considering that the wet, jungle environment of the new world is far less forgiving to archeological artifacts than the dry, arid environment of the Middle East AND the fact that barely any archeological research has been done in the new world compared to places like the Middle East or Europe.
So you argument is that there is archeological evidence, because the reason we can't find a single bit of evidence is because of jungles... Come on... If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. There isn't an invisible cat sitting on the chair just because we can't see it.
Agreed. The environments and the cultures of the people are so different. It's pretty silly to complain that the physical evidence doesn't look exactly the way it does in the Middle East. Plus, Western archeologists have been working on biblical history for much linger than the 1830s.
"If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die for a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or any other denomination" Joseph Smith
He died for his people and for the Lord, when lesser men would have given it all up and fled he faced the music. He knew he was going to die and went anyway.
@@president234 he literally did, even in his last moments he tried to draw attention to himself to save the other two men in the room with him. It worked, 2 out of 4 survived. Only deaths were himself and his brother who died just before him.
@LHJlives No he didn't. He found himself in that position in the first place because he couldn't stop fighting with people. That's why he was run out of every state he went to
Thank you for your podcast. As an ex Mormon (25+ years) and soon to be Catholic, I can’t thank you enough for helping me out of a false religion and a false Christ. Your instruction on the Catholic faith has sustained me through this difficult journey. Thank you again.
I hope you're ready to be forced to swallow The Immaculate Conception of Mary as a 'de fide' dogma. If you even *think* about doubting it, you're not a real Catholic. Are you sure you want to accept this dogma?
I’m surprised you are holding to your criticism of excessive use of “it came to pass” in the Book of Mormon after your debate with Jacob. In Hebrew, the Old Testament has around 1200 uses of “it came to pass,” but in the King James Version about half of the usages of the phrase were reworded in order to avoid redundancy. This quirk is literary evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon having Hebrew origin.
LOL - seriously? It's been known for CENTURIES that Hebrew OT has 1000+ uses of "it came to pass" .... as if 'nobody knew that' before Joseph Smith Copyrighted his BOM - LOL!!!
Also, it is very likely that the reformed egyptian had a single character to represent the phrase. No different from just writing "then" this happened and "then" that happened.
You should add one more point: neither in the Old or New Testament is there any prophecy about Mormonism (and Islam) - except the warning about false prophets.
Why would Christ give a warning about false prophets if there wouldn’t be true prophets? Why would He simply say, “there will be no prophets after Me”?
@@psychlops924 Because there were, are and probably will be prophets in the Church. But they never add or change the Church teaching. That's one of the key signs of false prophets.
Most of Biblical "prophesy" is rather vague, but the warning issued in Galatians 1:8 so accurately describes the claims of Muhammad and Smith that it's eerie.
If we drive the conversation to the Great Apostasy, then the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is pointless. Mormon missionaries use their personal witness of the BOM to drive you to read it, but if we direct the conversation to the false teaching of the Great Apostasy, it is more fruitful in the long run.
If the Bible says, "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him", shouldn't I just read the Book of Mormon and ask God about it myself, rather than take your word for it?
Sure, and wisdom from God would show you that all these glaring issues seem to point out that Joseph Smith was clearly not a prophet. Although, the test that Mormons set is the whole burning in the busom, which is worthlessly subjective, and should seem highly suspect when the Bible tells us that the heart is desperately wicked and none understand it.
I read the entire Book of Mormon in 2002 and most of Doctrines and Covenants. It was that process that lead me to then study early Christianity and becoming Catholic in 2004.
@@Sousabird Trent has misrepresented a few things here about Joseph Smith. You can find the whole truth about Joseph Smith with a deeper dive on your own. Read Smith's own account, in his own words. Search the Joseph Smith Papers for yourself and then put that to the test. I'm sure Trent is a good guy, but why not ask God?
Any chance you have a source for the claim that “school children could memorize the Book of Matthew in just a few weeks”? I’m very interested in the history of ars memoria in education.
Well, Matthew is the shortest book of the Gospel and if one re-reads and hears something enough times, it gets stuck in your brain. I know some people who have chapters of their favorite books memorized, can quote a whole movie on the fly, and are just insanely great at memorizing things. I’m struggle a bit with memorizing some basic day to day stuff, but there’s still plenty of other long form stuff I can recite off the top of my head. Especially if set against a song or rhyme scheme, which is a pretty technique for memorizing stuff. The curriculum also used to be a bit more intense for school children than it is now. A basic education included arithmetic, writing, sometimes language (mainly Latin), and reading, which is something some 18 years on America don’t master but still are allowed to graduate 😑 Maybe search “early American education curriculum” or “early education practices” to get a better idea on what people back then actually knew and how they learned.
1. Its Doubtful you are accurate 2. Its doubtful you know the truth 3. Its doubtful you are honest 4. Its doubtful you know the evidence 5. Its doubtful you are sincere
I was really getting into the arguments against Mormonism and Islam, but then I realized, all that matters is where it comes from. Where and when does it come from? Both Islam and Mormonism fall completely flat at origin. Nothing else really matters to me.
Don't atheists say the same thing about Christianity? Seems like a pretty surface level argument coming from them, so it's probably not a solid game plan to adopt . . .
Mormonism (Or Lds Faith / Christ Church) Comes from the restoration in the latter days (spoken from the prophet Isiah - in the bible). The USA was allowed to be because of "freedom of religion" (Only place on earth with a separation of church and state) only place where Christ "true gospel" could be practiced and restored (vs in Rome) where at the time the catholic church became more of a "state religion" without divine authority, apostles, prophets (as in days past - when Jesus was here on earth). If you ever watched a really good show, check out the chosen!
I don't understand how someone can repeat the same arguments from a debate that were debunked in real time without addressing any of those rebuttals. It shows a lack of integrity, and a disrespect of the person who you engaged with.
Excellent points, well laid out. I am LDS/Mormon and look at truthfulness. Unfortunately, it's difficult to discuss these things rationally with most LDS members.
At least in the debate Jacob could push back against some of these patently false claims. And here Horn is doubling down on patently false information.
Thanks Trent, for mentioning the phrases at 1:23. Im a former LDS and ot became an injoke with my family (actually started by my dad whose never been LDS) to say "AND SO IT CAME TO PASS!!" In a very deep and dramatic voice to emulate a dramatized audiobook of the Book of Mormon. We still do it today infact, even though all of us are nominally Christian and all but one are baptized.
He's just parroting Mark Twain who said it much more pithily. On top of this, it's an evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Why would you think an ancient book from another language would abide by modern writing conventions? Wouldn't it be a bigger red flag if the Book of Mormon suspiciously sounded exactly the way everyone talks? An LDS professor of Biblical Hebrew writes, "The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi (often used to connect two ideas or events), “and it came to pass,” appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel. As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:20-25); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles. But why does the phrase “and it came to pass” appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as “and it came to pass.” Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.” Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as “and it came to pass” in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of “and it came to pass,” which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word. The Prophet Joseph Smith may not have used the phrase at all-or at least not consistently-in the Book of Mormon had he created that record. The discriminating use of the Hebraic phrase in the Book of Mormon is further evidence that the record is what it says it is"
Many Mormons are saying Trent lost this debate...but I just don't see it? Jacob's whole argument was to prove that the book or mormon was divinely inspired and he did not do that? Trent however discredited the founders of mormonism, which DOES discredit mormonism all together.
The Romans took the records and accepted them into the "Christian canon" based on popularity, tradition, and provability as having a link to one of the original apostles. We accept that there are records that were inspired by God and should have been included but were not by this uninspired process.
He did lose because he gish gallopped tropes that have been authoritatively researched and disproven many times over. Information that Trent would have known had he spent more than he did prepping for the debate.
@jessekoeven3757 but you do accept the bible as being divinely inspired? But you also believe the church established by Jesus went into apostasy after the death of the apostles? Yet it was the Catholic church in the late 300's AD that brought the world the bible as we know it. When many false gospels and books existed the church guided by the holy spirit decided which books should be including in the bible we know, and you claim is divinely inspired. My question for you is, if the church was in apostasy at the time they compiled the bible, then why do you consider the bible divinely inspired?
@rcwarrior868 Because the portions that we have are divinely inspired.We are still open to additional inspiration, even from those books that the corrupt Romans decreed as false in their uninspired councils.
@rcwarrior868 We decide what is inspired based on the gift of revelation and inspiration given to apostles and prophets. Without those apostles and prophets, on what grounds did the Romans say, with any degree of authority, what was inspired and what was not?
@@asamtaviajando8388 I don't see the point of this line of thought. Jesus put mud on someone's face. Can you believe that? He spit on dirt to create mud. Have you ever shaded the sun to see your phone better?
@@natedawg2020 there is much in the Bible that the church does not require you to believe literally. Much of it can be interpreted in other ways, and always profoundly. Mormons HAVE to believe this guy, with this record, looked inside a hat and saw divine words.
Divine words that seem to borrow a lot from books people back in the gold plates time couldn’t have possible know about. Why wasn’t he looking at the gold plates?
It would have been nice to hear your response in this video to some of the objections raised in the debate. It seemed like the Mormon debater addressed many of these fairly well in your debate.
Are you saying that if, at some point in the future, the geography of the Book of Mormon is scientifically verified as authentic, you'll then believe it is true and convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
@@natedawg2020the lack of evidence for great civilizations mentioned is proof that it's manmade lies. Same with the absolute lack of genetic proof and the many anachronisms. Your apologist didn't remotely dispel those in the debate.
@@georgerafa5041 To restate the painfully obvious as Jacob did in the debate, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a well-respected Harvard archaeologist named Bill Saturno who said that of all the Mayan sites that we know exist, we have excavated less than one percent of them. Of the fraction of sites where they have done excavations, he says they’ve only excavated about a tenth of the sites. Any inferences you are making about current archaeology are based on only knowing an estimated 0.1% of known Mayan sites. Lack of Jewish DNA is also expected. Lamanite becomes a metaphorical term within the Book of Mormon timeline and they are implied to have interbred with other inhabitants.
Latter-Day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the founder of BYU's archaeology division(New World Archaeological Foundation). NWAF was financed by the LDS church to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. After many years of diligent effort, this is what Ferguson wrote in a letter about trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon: "...you can't set the Book of Mormon geographically down anywhere-because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt - archaeology. I should say - what is in the ground will never confirm what is in the book." In fact, according to the National Geographic Society, “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past, and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” In the mid 1970’s, President Spencer W. Kimball made a statement that should have stopped these “faith promoting rumors.” The Church News published the statement, which said that people should stop looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, for there is none. Perhaps he finally realized that it was too embarrassing to insist on Book of Mormon archaeology since professors in the Church’s own University had started to deny publicly that there was any truth to it. LDS Professor Dee Green, in Dialogue, summer of 1969, pp. 74-78, wrote: “The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles of books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists… no Book of Mormon location is known… Biblical archaeology can be studied, because we know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any location for that matter) were or are….” Thomas S. Ferguson was a firm believer and he was sure that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. He was an attorney and believed that he knew how to weigh the evidence, once it was found, and a lot of “evidence” was found; but unfortunately for the LDS Church, the evidence did not have any connection to the Book of Mormon. Ferguson spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and 25 years of his life, as a head of “The New World Archaeological Foundation,” funded by the Church. But in spite of all the efforts, by 1970, he had come to the conclusion that all had been in vain, that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, and that Mormonism was not true. Another example is B.H. Roberts, noted scholar and a General Authority in the Mormon Church, whose secret manuscript has only fairly recently been published, and who had come to question the Book of Mormon quite some time before Ferguson did. B.H. Roberts’s typewritten manuscript of more than 400 pages, titled Book of Mormon Difficulties was written sometime between 1922-1933. In this manuscript he admitted that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with what is now known from twentieth century archaeological investigation about the early inhabitants of America. After going into a lengthy explanation of impossibilities in the Book of Mormon, he also says that he has come to discover things he didn’t know earlier in his life; for instance, that Joseph Smith did have access to a number of books that could have assisted him and given him ideas for the Book of Mormon.
Odd to hear a member of one religion trashing another. Yeah, like I'm FAR more likely to agree with the guy who thinks that wine literally turns into blood. I have no problem with either religion, except for the fact that they are both equally contrived.
I think you could have structured your arguments better especially on number three: Joseph Smith was a false prophet. This seems to be weak circular reasoning when you start out the video saying if you can disprove the Book of Mormon then you can disprove that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Joseph Smith said “a prophet is a prophet only when acting as such.” It seems contradictory to say Joseph was intimately familiarly enough with the Bible to produce the Book of Mormon, but he must have missed the part where no man knows the day or hour of the second coming not even the angels. Joseph obviously did not think he was making a prophecy when he was asked for his opinion about when the second coming would happen. He’s allowed to have his personal opinion as a man which may be wrong. The attack on section 87 as a false prophecy is cliche and weak. Joseph accurately prophesied specific details of the civil war 30 years in advance including that the war would start in South Carolina and that the South would call for aid from Great Britain and other countries. Unlike you have falsely inferred, this prophecy does not insist that the American Civil War would incite war among all nations. Joseph lists all the details of the Civil War using commas, and then uses a semicolon, and then he says “and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.” Why use a semicolon instead a comma as he had previously done? The semicolon shows a separation of the ideas. World War did happen after the Civil War, but not necessarily as a result of it. To say this is a false prophecy is a stretch. You have misread without attention to detail.
A Few False Prophecies of Joseph Smith: *In 1835 Joseph Smith prophesied the Lord’s return within 56 years (History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 182). By 1891 this was proven to be a false prophecy. *In 1843 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown and wasted within a few years if they refused to redress the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri (History of the Church, Vol. 5, pg. 394). The United States government has never formally redressed any wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri and the government still stands nearly 170 years later. *In 1832 Joseph Smith prophesied that the present generation of Mormons would not pass away before the temple of the New Jerusalem would be built in Zion, Missouri (Doctrine & Covenants Section 84). The Mormons were forced to flee Missouri and no temple was constructed there in Joseph Smith’s lifetime or within the generation that witnessed this prophecy. *In 1832 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States civil war would eventually engulf all nations (Doctrine & Covenants Section 87). This prophecy did not come close to being fulfilled. Joseph Smith made many other false prophecies in his lifetime. By the standards of God’s word, he must be labeled a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
@@joksal9108 My point remains that these are absurd grounds to claim Joseph Smith was a false prophet if nothing in the prophecy was incorrect. I agree it’s not overly impressive to have predicted a Civil War because of slavery. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams expressed concerns in the 1820s that slavery would lead to civil war. Many newspapers and editorials were speculating about it in the 1830s as well. However, Joseph Smith did accurately prophesy several more specific details 30 years in advance. Whether or not this is impressive to you or me is not relevant to the unsubstantiated accusation that Trent made about it being a false prophecy.
@@joksal9108 My point still stands that it is not a false prophecy, which makes Trent’s argument bad. I also am not overly impressed by this prophecy, but that isn’t relevant to whether this was a true or false prediction. It was clearly a true prediction.
After watching that debate, I concluded the only way you could think Jacob won or even did a good job is because you either didn’t recognize when he was misrepresenting or exaggerating details, or didn’t recognize that Trent refuted the vast majority of his points. I thought Trent handled the cross examination beautifully and I actually laughed at the “filibuster” comment. I also found it incredibly ironic that Jacob would accuse Trent of leaving out details when that’s exactly what he did repeatedly. A few notable examples are “bountiful,” and Smith’s apparent lack of education coupled with Emma’s testimony of Smith’s inability to write. Mormons actually searched this “bountiful” area and found nothing. Surely Jacob knew that. There is literally a page dedicated to Smith’s writings on the Joseph Smith Papers. You can read and see for yourself that Smith was more than capable of writing. The very first “first vision” account is written by Joseph Smith. And according to the LDS website, Smith was surrounded by teachers and loved to learn. As for Emma’s testimony, she also lied about Joseph Smith’s polygamy in that same interview. SURELY Jacob knew that. It was frustrating listening to the constant exaggerations and misrepresentations. That is, until Trent very clearly refuted them. I don’t remember the quote exactly, but I once heard it put something like this, “The entire land could be dug 50 feet down and the Mormon would say the evidence was in the 51st foot.”
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Prayers for the conversion of all Non-Christians
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us
Sanguina il Sacro Cuore, sulla nostra bandiera
E della notte inizia ultima mia preghiera
@@thisis_chavez what about people that were not Christians before Jesus and native Americans before Columbus, are they in heaven.
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may attain eternal salvation. ~ Vatican 2
@@desmondjones8517 they were held in Limbo until Jesus opened the gates to Heaven. See John 5:25 : Even the dead will hear the Gospel. .
Each person is only held to account for what they knew or had the opportunity to know.
@@desmondjones8517 not if they practiced human sacrifice
Funny you mentioned it, I was at a hotel last week and they had a Book of Mormon in the room. I picked it up just to see what it was like, and I swear every other sentence started with “And it came to pass” lol
Don't forget 'yea!'
And 'yea, even unto...'
see the preface to the NKJV, and the translators decision to render 'and it came to pass'/'thus saith' &c in a variety of ways compared to the KJV's tendency to translate the Hebrew phrase in the same way.
If you knew Biblical Hebrew this wouldn’t be funny to you at all.
"It came to pass" is a Hebraism.
A Hilton, right?
Former LDS, now Catholic . . . thanks for doing this Trent!
You lost out on a wonderful thing.
@@GldnClaw
I gained Truth, Beauty, and Goodness . . . absolutely nothing better than that.
Former Mormon, not Catholic. But I agree more with Catholicism than Mormonism for sure. Its religion as a whole actually makes sense for one
@@GldnClawI would’ve said the same thing before I studied deeply and truly
@@andrewseymore4506 you want to explain how Mormon Doctrine keeps showing up in the Apocrypha when Joseph Smith had access to exactly none of it? Eternal Marriage, Intelligence of Man is Co-Equal with God, Mankind may become as God, Plan of Salvation, Restoration of the Gospel (Peter said that a False Gospel [Catholicism] must come first as an imposter, and only then can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects that are to come)
There is a reason the founder of Mormonism is called "American Muhammad"
I saw meme that went somthing like this
Islam "your just a cheat clone"
Mormonism "oh no, I'm the upgrade"
Right down to the disturbing doctrines on child marriage
But comparing the actual demographics that's like day and night.
only by stupid people who have no understanding of history.
LOL He is? I've heard a lot of stupid things said about Joseph Smith, but that's a new one. Who the hell calls him _that_? Only absolute idiots would compare them.
What do Muslims teach?
That God no longer speaks to His children; no longer gives new scripture; & no longer calls living prophets.
What do sectarian Christians teach?
That God no longer speaks to His children; no longer gives new scripture; & no longer calls living prophets.
Was Joseph Smith saying, "God doesn't have a son," and then war mongered his way through history? No? Then he's not "The American Mohammed."
If the Church that Jesus founded became apostate and disappeared for 1900 years, it would indicate that Jesus lied to us when He said "I will not leave you nor forsake you". I know Jesus didn't lie to us but Joseph Smith definitely did.
Even more offensive considering that Mormons believe The True church either vanished and reappeared as the Mormon church we see now, or it didnt exist until modern day. Which is completely contradictory to The Bible which teaches that "The gates of Hades (hell) will not overcome the Kingdom of God" (c.f Matthew 16:18)
The light of Christ never left though... He didn't forsake anyone. There was no lack of forgiveness or mercy during the apostasy. There just wasn't priesthood authority to be found. That doesn't make Jesus a liar.
@@hrothgarnogaryou people just make stuff up about the early church and a total Apostasy.
CYA ing is LDS, MOS !!!
The Protestant position is that the Catholic church fell into apostasy. Best study up.
Good thing the Protestant position is also wrong, just less wrong than Mormonism
Joseph Smith said it himself…that he “would be a 2nd Muhammad to this generation”
Yeah, but still..... Joseph Smith is a deceiver! So he's a liar.
😂
Since,Sola Escriptura,Sola fide,
and the printing press,came in to existence, the black Legend, has being propagated like a wild fire.
@@Macariorealrey black legend?
Cite your sources please. I'll help you -reported second hand by the antagonistic Thomas Marsh. Also known as hearsay
I’m an agnostic Mormon who has been looking into Catholicism. I appreciate your respectful criticism of the LDS faith.
We have about 9 young couples in our OCIA (Order for Christian Initiation for Adults) Program that are former Mormons at St Anne Catholic Church in Gilbert, AZ. Their instruction is weekly with in a large inquirer group setting that builds community along with their Sponsors who attend the weekly classes with them from the beginning starting September through Easter when they are baptized and confirmed into the Catholic Faith on Saturday, Easter Vigil of Holy Week. It is a beautiful journey and covered in prayer by the Sponsors and Candidates alike. That is why we Catholics say “Welcome Home” when Inquirers become Catechumens and begin regular attendance at Mass realizing the sanctuary is where Heaven comes to earth through the Eucharist.
I left Mormonism a long time ago, became Catholic this past year. I have to say that, after being in both, Catholicism is by far the more spiritually uplifting. Mass isn't just a bunch of "hey guys, you're all great, I'm great, let's pay tithing and do whatever we're told!" The focus is totally on Jesus. Mormonism is a one size fits all religion, which was one of my biggest problems. Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, all have various ways to carry out the faith and grow closer to God and are adaptable to the lay person. It really is universal. You have any questions, let me know.
@@TheCharlie1701 Why do members of all these large religions not be able to see that they are in bondage to their church. Each one adds rituals that have nothing to do with Gods Word the Bible. My Bible tells me it is the Gift of God and yet each church has these rituals an requires payment.
@@robertrlkatz6890 Cause candles are expensive. But in all seriousness, I don't think you'd understand. At least we can agree that Jesus is the Messiah.
@@TheCharlie1701 But why even do those religions when it does not even heed the True Bible, why be in a religion that threatens their members of apostacy if you should leave it. My Bible does not do that, it does not tell us to do all that man made up stuff. Does not force people to give their money.
The major claim of Islam is that no one could create a book like the Quran, that you know it’s true when you read it-exactly like JS with the BoM. And so many overlaps with violent history, political nature of the religion, convenient/manipulative revelations to justify its founder’s indiscretions, polygamy, etc… If these religions post-date Christianity by many centuries and supposed to be a revival of the true faith, why are the moral teachings/behaviors of their founders set to a lower standard? What is added the Christianity didn’t already have in a more developed form?
The notion that nobody could create a book like the Quran is ridiculous when you remember that the Iliad and Odyssey are Greek Poems that are *longer* than the Quran, and were recited orally for *centuries*.
@@tylerk1013Also the fact that almost all of the non biblical stories in the Quran are copied from stories in apocryphal and pseudepigraphical Christian or Jewish writings like the Infancy Gospel or the life of Adam and Eve
@@trevoradams3530
Surely the Bible contains no history of politics, violence, and convenient revelations to justify centuries of indiscretions, crusades, and monarchies.
LDS missionaries don't try and convert people based on the claim that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon. They invite people to read it for themselves and then ask God if it is true. IT seems to me that you are relying on a Strawman argument by attributing primary importance to a rather minor apologetic belief that has more popularity on You Tube than in the LDS Church as a whole.
@@brettmajeske3525 The claim that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon is potentially a stronger claim than simply asking someone to "ask God if it is true." I'm sure you'll agree that members of non-LDS religions claim that God has revealed to them the truth of their own religion. I'm sure, furthermore, you'll agree that some people have reported having asked God whether Mormonism is true, and have not received an affirmative response. Therefore, this claim is difficult to substantiate. The former claim about Smith, well, at least we can grapple with it and debate whether it's true or false.
I grew up LDS and my searching eventually led me to wanting to start my Catechism in the Catholic Church. I will say, despite their heretical teachings, Mormons that i grew up with exemplify how Jesus would want us to live. Big families, church goers, patriarchal and traditional. Which is better than other churches have done(cough cough, gay flags in Protestant churches). Good people that have been led astray
You’re being a little misleading by stating there are “gay flags in Protestant churches”. This is a logical contradiction.
I believe they are good people who were led astray initially and have been working their way toward Christianity. They weren't always so kind and we all know they did teach the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church. Let's talk about FRUIT, the fruit of the church that still follows the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young IS the fundamentalist LDS church. The current mainstream LDS church does not look like the church it its original form.
That’s the devils trick, keeping us separated.
@@JoshM1212 I mean, evangelical churches and Baptist churches a lot of them have gone full woke They’re allowing women to be pastors and marrying gay people recently even pope Francis allowed priests to bless gay marriage. The LDS church is doing better than any of them in that aspect except for maybe orthodoxy.
@@isaiahdryg9725 For the 1000th time. Pope Francis did not say priests could bless same sex unions or any other "disordered union". He has clarified that over and over again. He simply said if a person that is in a same sex union asks for a blessing, not a blessing of a union, but one that may allow them to receive grace and change their heart ...do so. That is no different than what the LDS church does.
Yet another great content done.
Thank you, brother Trent H, and all the awesome souls behind this RUclips channel @TheCounselofTrent.
God bless you and your ministry.
Greetings from the South West Pacific.
He has to post his arguments in this format in order to curate the comments section and not have his poor research blown out in the debate with Jacob Hansen. Robert Boylan already refuted every point of this days ago.
@GldnClaw yes, I am Catholic, and even I agree that leading Mormon scholars debunked his points recently. I was disappointed he just restated them here. I was hoping he would engage with their rebuttals ... I actually found Jacob's arguments much more convincing (and that came as a total shock to me).
@@catholicdisciple3232 I've seen really good apologetics from the Roman Catholic church. There are even some aspects that I have "holy envy" of (if I've used the term correctly). I was hoping that would reflect in Trent's response here.
@@catholicdisciple3232 What are you talking about? They have never debunked these points.
@@GldnClawlet qoute Boy Lan: Trent is a piece of S--t . He said they don't want him to swear so he said Extrment instead.
Your boy has rejected Christianity and it's obvious to authentic Christians.
Some missionaries gave me the Book of Mormon and asked for my thoughts. When I said it didn’t resonate to me and that I wasn't that impressed with its claims, they claimed I hadn’t opened my heart enough. It felt like they wouldn’t be satisfied unless I gave a glowing review, which seemed manipulative.
I always struggled with the “how does it make you feel.” If the answer is in any way positive, “that is the Holy Spirit confirming to your Spirit that it is true.” Well jeez, if I applied that to other literature I suppose I’d be easily duped by anything that I enjoy reading…
Do you realize that missionaries are young people (18-20 years old) who devote 1.5-2 years of their lives sharing a book and a religion that has had impact on their personal lives? You don't have to agree with the book, but at least recognize these young people's personal investment in their faith which is the reason they might be disappointed in your reaction
How much did you read?
@@jackzones678 Actually, the missionaries were older than me at the time, lol. If they were truly devoted, they'd be less stubborn and more self-aware. Their disappointment in my reaction only highlights how weak their conviction really is. If their faith was solid, they wouldn’t need me to “open my heart” or give a glowing review to validate it. Expecting that is manipulative and desperate, not a sign of true belief. Try sending better people next time.
@@jackzones678 It's not a very intellectual religion. They shoukd use their God given reason
American equivalent of islam.
Even Joseph Smith had more wives than Mohammad lol
It really is. But because it never gained any significant political power it had to adopt this overtly happy facade in order to survive.
@@centurysince4312that’s a really good point.
@@centurysince4312 Still, I don't think even if muslZims are a minority in a region they will be as peace loving as the Mormons. MuhaZmmad's conquests made him a role model that was too brutal for their religion .
When did Mormons colonize and enslave people?
It feels like Trent felt guilty of being too respectful towards Mormonism in a recent interview 😂. Respect for obliterating this false religion. Thank you for doing what you do and God bless you.
I was thinking the same thing 😂 I guess the balance of being prudent.
Maybe my thought on this is too far removed from what youre meaning but I’d say I agree! However, I say this because for some reason or reasons I have struggled with the thought that this is too often the case with a number of Catholic apologists on RUclips in terms of how they speak of and speak to other faiths and even within the denominations in Christianity. Maybe it’s my sinful, flawed, corrupt way of thinking that lead me to this conclusion.
I understand we should be charitable and respectful always.
I recently started reading the works of the Church Fathers and I haven’t yet read their and the Church’s response to certain heretical groups but I doubt they spoke to them like apologists today speak to our modern day groups. And I doubt the Church Fathers and councils failed to keep charity and fraternal love while they confronted those in their day.
That's probably why Jacob focused on the fruits of the LDS faith. It's hard to obliterate a false religion that's getting better results than the "true" one. Citing geography and archaeology to prove theology? It's not a strong position.
@HaleStorm49, your better fruit is rotten: you're only fooling yourself by your indoctrination.
@@HaleStorm49yea that’s exactly what i thought. showing mormons are doing better in terms of something like age for example doesn’t prove that the book of mormon is divine revelation. i was surprised to see that people thought jacob did good when his arguments could be applied to almost any religion or new divine revelation. he doesn’t have the uniqueness of the arguments for the Bible, so i think he did pretty poor
I was raised Mormon but decided to leave when I was 20. The argument that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon because he was an uneducated farm boy doesn't work for many reasons but here is one of them: the First Vision Account, which was written by J Smith without inspiration from God (as Mormons acknowledge), is very well written. In fact, Harold Bloom described it as a masterpiece. Therefore, we _know_ that Joseph Smith could write very well since he wrote the First Vision Account. Its by no means implausible then that he could have written the BofM, which is in places tremendously boring and repetitive.
Leaving and becoming Catholic at 18!
@@basedsigmalifter9482 You are? If so, that's a good decision.
That's the worst agument I've heard yet. Which account at which age are you talking about? The one in History of the Church is the 5th one from 1842, 22 years after it happened, with the Lord having taught Joseph since then. That particular account was the one that was part of the Wentworth letter (that had the Articles of Faith) in it as well.
You seem to only have been raised *culturally* a member, or are being disingenous.
@@GldnClaw I'm pleased that you mention the fact that there are multiple versions of the First Vision since (as you know) they contradict each other, which is another disproof of Mormonism. Did Joseph Smith write the 1842 First Vision Account? Yes. Did he claim that it was revealed to him? No. Is it exceptionally well written? Yes. So, it would seem that Smith unquestionably had the ability to write exceptionally well since the First Vision account is exceptionally well written. Harold Bloom said that it is a 'masterpiece'. Do we all have the capacity to write a literary masterpiece? I don't think so. So, it would appear that Smith was very gifted at writing. Therefore, its not implausible that he should have composed the B of M, which, in parts, is atrociously written. So, its by no means a 'defeater' but it shows that Smith had literary gifts of a high order.
My father was a Bishop and a Stake President. I have met Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Monson and Pres. Faust. I was even commended in the Preston Temple by Pres. Hinckley in 1997 (or 1998, I can't recall the exact year). I was not just a cultural Mormon. Sorry, but I am not following a man who practiced polygamy and polyandry and who lied to his wife and who burned down a printing press. Sorry! Not interested.
You realize he wrote the first vision account several years afters he translated the Book of Mormon? And, unlike the translation of the BOM, Smith could edit his writing of the first vision accounts. This is just a bad argument.
"tapirs, which are kinda like big weird lookin pigs" this is my favorite Trent Horn quote.
except he completely ignored the fact that natives referred to European horses as tapirs and that Romans referred to hippos as horses. He was playing off of peoples ignorance and you fell right into it.
@@KevinDeVochtno the book of Mormon is a fraudulent book
@@KevinDeVocht my friend the book of Mormon is fraudulent
They used to laugh at the idea that steel swords were found in Jerusalem too. Recent science has proven that to be true. See the Jericho Sword. Give it time...
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Is one of Trent's favorite lines he uses against atheists, but now he argues like an atheist himself.
@@fightingfortruth9806 well yes because the evidence for mormonism is nonexistent and comes from a long history of frauds
Absolutely amazing video!
Thank you very much! -Vanessa
I would recommend watching Orthodox Apologist John Yelland's series of debates with Mormons. They're fun, and he's a really nice guy.
“All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so 'slow', so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle - keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.”
-- Mark Twain
I too like to employ celebrity comedians of my day for my analysis of Truth.
@@GldnClaw I quote it because its funny. To examine the truth, all you have to do is look at what the LDS and Joseph Smith claimed, and notice its pretty much entirely incorrect.
Similarly, I find the idea that a man claiming to be a prophet of God managed to get nothing right and die in a jail shoot out to have a certain comedic absurdity to it, it could probably make for a good Coen Brothers flick.
Convenient Mark Twain quotes. Here are some more of his:
"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live."
@@couragecoachsam "Convenient". I am sorry that this is confusing to you. I do not think LDS is false because Mark Twain said it. Similarly, I do not think he is any authority or even that he has anything particularly interesting to say when it comes to religion. Twain's personal feelings on religion are imminently irrelevant to a truth claim, and saying No God or religion can survive ridicule is simply and demonstrably false. I quoted his take on the Book of Mormon because I think that its funny. You can tell I think this because I said, "I quote it because its funny".
There is no good reason to be LDS, when literally none of the claims made by the people involved are true. And getting into a shoot 'em up in prison because you smashed up a printer is an insane way for anyone to die, let alone someone representing God. But its also insane that someone allegedly aided by God almighty was somehow unable to properly translate Egyptian, despite the fact that regular people can do that, apparently it was a bit to hard for Joseph Smith and God.
Twain was a satarist (satire)
“Catholicism is true therefore Mormonism is false” 🔥🔥🔥
This, but unironically !
You do understand how stupid this argument is… right?
“Mormonism is true therefore Catholicism is false” 🔥🔥🔥
This is the most trash argument I’ve ever heard
@@ItsSnagret bois we found the Mormon
@@ItsSnagret it’s NOT a joke u silly goose.
Good morning, Trent! I hope you go on Matt's Pints With Aquinas podcast again...and surpass the 6 1/2 hour Jimmy episode! I hear, or, hopefully, will hear 7 hours is the perfect number! =)
I keep mentioning your "It's Not Always Demons" with Jimmy Akin and "The Emptiness of 'Political Christianity" at any opportunity in discussion. They're a couple of my all time favorite youtube videos reflecting on childhood onward! Prayed for you, your family, and everyone here at Mass yesterday and in my Rosary this morning. Hope you and yours have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed week!
I have a simple argument against Mormonism: Joseph Smith claimed that God is "an exalted man" and that there is an "eternal ring of the gods"; but we know that God is _not_ an "exalted man"; therefore Mormonism is false. All of the great world religions recognise that God is a transcendent reality outside of all of our categories and we have good reasons to suppose that such a reality exists. The Mormon 'god' is (in the final analysis) another contingent, that is, dependent, being (since he depends on another 'god' and obedience to law) and therefore is no divinity at all.
Former member x 10 years, now Catholic, and I came to the personal conclusion the universe is essentially God in the Mormon religion and the Mormon version of God is essentially an advanced alien being. An exalted man subject to laws external to Himself who has mastered them/gained in power/glory over time. It’s a very different concept, as you note, from the transcendent God of other major religions, more similar to the pagan faiths.
Also, any being incapable of creating from nothing and only able to organize preexistent matter is not omnipotent…
No, God through Joseph corrected the false narrative that God is without parts or passions. Jesus Christ is God the Son. He did only that which he saw the Father do. Jesus was resurrected and lives eternally embodied. The Father then was resurrected and lives eternally embodied.
@@couragecoachsam You are claiming that 'God' was once _not_ 'God' but had to become 'God' by obedience to law and that he himself had a god, and so on ad infinitum. Thus, in fact, you are claiming that 'God' is (1) a created being and (2) that he is a dependent being, even for his power. That is most certainly not what the Bible teaches- or any other religion for that matter. God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" but I can easily think of a being greater than the Mormon 'god', therefore Mormonism is idolatrous nonsense.
Trent made the same argument with Jacob that all these other religions agree on the nature of God. He also cited non Christian scholars. Makes a strong case for consensus Christianity. It's true because we all agree it's true 🤔
@@couragecoachsamDoesn't reality require an uncreated creator?
Interesting how a Stone discovered in Egypt, the Rosetta Stone two centuries ago debunks Mormonism.
Modern DNA Science also debunks it.
How?
@@kellyjohnson4578mormons believe that the native Americans are related to Israelites according to the Book of Mormon but dna testing has completely disproven that
@@kellyjohnson4578
Science.
@@DanA.-jo4sg wow. Consider me convinced.
Glad you made this video and I hope you will make another one refuting his inconsistency/double standard argument against you and the Bible.
@@bilbobaggins9893 I would like to see any refutation of anything said in the debate
@@batboy12394 see above video.
@@batboy12394 see above video.
you are another one who missed the point: Hansen used Trent's own "argument" with the Bible as an example to show Trent's double standard in evaluating BOM. So, if Trent makes that kind of "refutation" video, he'll be refuting himself.
I could never debate a Mormon, especially one like Jacob, because:
1) I know very little of Mormonism.
2) I would probably go after the common talking points Mormons have answered for years.
3) I may end up arguing like an atheist.
4) I am forever affected by South Park's episode on Mormonism. I would just keep thinking about the "Dumb, Dumb, Dumb," song.
Yeah #4 is like the _Hope and Change_ for religious dialogue. It turns people's brains off.
I dislike that they set it up as a debate (rather than a Joe Rogan-style discussion) since it's counterproductive to curiosity-based discovery. it will be interesting to see if we get something a little more genuine, laid back, and potentially unsafe in the future.
I respect the honesty
@@HaleStorm49 There was a discussion that Jacob posted over on Thoughtful Faith a week before the debate aired.
@@MusicBlik Yeah I see why they want the safety of a debate. The video on materiality was hard to watch.
It's finny, because Horn did 1, 2, and 3 in the debate, and doubled down here even after being refuted on several points.
Just this year, several new cities in the amazon have been uncovered with populations estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. If your argument for the BoM being invalid is there’s no evidence, that’s just ridiculous. We’re barely starting to explore how many archaeological sites there are in central and south america.
Nobody denies that we are learning about history more and more every day with new discoveries, but the last of inspired Scripture came 2000 years ago, it's not still being written today, sorry.
Congrats on reaching 160k subscribers 👏
One of the reasons is that it doesn't have a map, isn't it?
Edit: Wow I was kinda right. 😂 The comment was meant to be a reference to the 'Horribly out of context' Trent hron video.
Having been raised a Mormon and studied to be a professor of Mormon doctrine, but left because of it, you did a very good job. When a lot of people speak against Mormonism they often get details wrong, which only adds to Mormons affirmations that anything they don’t like is just anti-Mormon propaganda. You did very well at presenting the truth of the historical record. I’m not Catholic either, but I am far more Catholic these days than Mormon
I also watched your full debate and enjoyed it. Mormons are very good at coming up with responses to questions, but it doesn’t mean they make sense. Their whole cosmological worldview doesn’t even make sense
God bless you. Thank you for leaving that false faith
Now become Catholic 🙂
@@damnedmadman that wouldn’t be a bad move. I’ve also found Eastern Orthodox Christianity to be quite inspired. Catholics and Orthodox are more in line than most, and have the greatest claims of Christian denominations
Like when Horn quoted a hit piece that said that one of the witnesses 'saw with his spiritual eyes'? That was directly refuted by said witness?
Yes, I agree, shoddy work like that makes me think that Horn indeed is either speaking out of ignorance or malice.
Anyone else reminded of South Park. “Martin Harris dumb dumb dumb Lucy Harris Smart”
Any time The Book of Mormon is mentioned, I think of the song.
So Kamala is related to Martin?
Because cartoons is where I get my historical knowledge....
Both Trent and South Park have no clue about that whole story. Truth is found in the details. If you look at all the details of that part of LDS history, and put it in a larger framework, it even _supports_ The BoMormon's authenticity in some ways.
@@namordecai The Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of plagiarisms from the King James Bible.
The only Bible that Joseph Smith relied on was the King James Version. This translation was based on a good but imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.
Scholars now know that this Textus Receptus contained errors, which means the King James Version contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show up in the Book of Mormon.
It seems reasonable to assume that if Smith was a prophet of God and was translating the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, he would have known about the errors found in the King James Version, and would have corrected them for when passages from the King James Version appeared in the Book of Mormon. But the errors went in.
The “Fullness” of the Gospel?
According to a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol. 1, p. 160).
But if the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don’t Mormonism’s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God is nothing more than an “exalted man with a body of flesh and bones” appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the “spirit brother” of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum.
The Book of Mormon Is Anti-Mormon
These heterodox teachings, and many others like them, appear nowhere in the Book of Mormon. In fact, pivotal Mormon doctrines are flatly refuted by the Book of Mormon.
For instance, the most pointed refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: “Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’”
The Bottom Line
The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or archaeological support, and there is overwhelming empirical evidence that refutes it. Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines. This is important because the Latter-day Saints make such a point about it containing the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.” Third, the Book of Mormon abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works.
If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.
We read that Jesus “shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).
If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say that Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.
Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.
The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.
😂Absolutely. The song rang in my head throughout the entire video, but especially when the tale of the "new plates" was discussed. How anyone can know the actual history of Mormonism or Scientology and still convert is beyond me.
Mormon Apologists are coping and seething all over their blogs about this video. But Hansen did poorly because Mormonism is indefensible.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. Go ahead and roast me. Joseph Smith was a prophet of god. Why would you believe that crazy ghost story! If you want to know something outside the scope of time, space and the physical world then telepathy would be the only option. Telepathy can't be scientifically proven. But 17 million people would say otherwise. It's not telepathy it's called the holy Spirit. And don't tell me it's manipulated intuitive intuition. I have the world's rarest personality type that has the strongest intuitive intuition. You don't question where your own thoughts come from its subconscious, but you will recognize and reject thoughts that are not your own. Until you've had that telepathic/holy experience, then you'll only believe men that "think" they are wise at face value, instead of asking for evidence beyond their intelligence. Which is exactly what Joseph Smith said "go and find out for yourself".
That's not what these "experts" would tell you. They say, believe me and go nowhere else, you're crazy if you do.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've read the Book of Mormon. I read the Bible and the Book of Mormon every day. I believe them both to be true. If one reads Ezekiel 37, it tells of two "sticks" (scrolls, records) that will be held in one hand. One stick for Judah ( the Bible) and one stick for Joseph and Ephraim (Book of Mormon). The Book of Mormon tells of the visit of Jesus Christ to the western hemisphere after His resurrection. In beautiful language it tells of Him setting up His church in the Americas and calling 12 Disciples to go and baptize and gain converts. Also, at that visit, He heals the sick, blind & lame, just like He did during His ministry before His death. And there's also an especially touching scene of Jesus blessing the little children one by one, and angels descending and encircling their "little ones" in spiritual fire.
I won't take the time to refute the points made by Trent Horn, but many of his arguments are twisted & tweaked to make his point. And it makes me wonder why attack & attempt to destroy the faiths of other Christians? Aren't we all alike to God? Does God not love members if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just as much as Catholics or Lutherans or Baptists? I think He does.❤
You have Ezekiel 37 out of context. That very same chapter explains what the 2 stick represent
"other Christians"
People who believe that God the father was a corporeal dude who lived on another planet who became a God (not the eternal infinite immutable transcendent creator of the universe), just one of a multitude of Gods and who just happens to be the God of this planet...That isn't Christian. That's just using Christian themes to tell a space-God fiction. That fact that this Mormon farce has gone on this long, makes me lose faith in humanity altogether. If you can believe in that and that whole story (native Americans were Jews?!!!) you can believe in anything. People are just superstitious and extremely extremely extremely gullible.
You shouldn't have to throw your brain in the trash to be a believer. Faith isn't just believing in whatever BS some guy with an overactive imagination and overactive libido conjures up so that he can marry dozens of young women and sleep with other men's' wives. Real faith is grounded in reason.
Because you aren’t Christians. I say this with love, there are not multiple gods. Only ONE.
So when exactly did Jesus come to the western hemisphere?
@@womboyeckelstein There's no reason to exclude social trinitarians from Christianity.
Been waiting for this one!! 🗣️🗣️ Go Trent!!
He added nothing new here. Recently, leading Mormon scholars demonstrated why Trent's arguments here are weak, and he did NOTHING here to address any of that. Very disappointed (and I say this as a devout Catholic and big Trent supporter).
@@catholicdisciple3232 Thanks, great point! Just went to Rome (beautiful culture and history) I really love the catholic people (rich history and architecture)!
Trent: people could memorize entire books in a few weeks
Also Trent: redoing the 116 pages was impossible for him
This was hard to watch for the numerous wikipedia references with no nuance. If you'd like to doubt, at least do it with the context included.
Wikipedia has references if you scroll down lol
@@alejandrocanela691 What!? I never knew that! Oh wait, yes I did. So does everyone. Have you ever followed those links? Anyone who does quickly discovers how little they can be trusted for how often they use self-referential materials and dubious sources. Remember that these articles are written by volunteer non-experts from a company that does not disclose its financial or owners. Lastly, it's been an ongoing joke how often anything written about Mormonism is contested and changed. Please go beyond surface-level understanding.
It was impossible for him to redo the 116 pages because he was making it all up.
@@yellowblackbird9000 Whoa, is that what he was suggesting?! Lol, I know what he meant. I just find it funny that just a few lines earlier he was saying how it's not unheard of for people to recite oral stories of over 300,000 words and yet it was impossible to redo the portion already written.
@@geoffreydowdle5751 Because he wasn't memorizing it. He was making it up. That's the difference.
There is so much ignorance in here given by this man. I'm Jewish descent born in Monterrey, MEX. I know quite some hebrew and it is such a beautiful feeling reading that Holy Book of Mormon! It brings me back to the truth of who Christ is! Just as the Holy Bible!
By the way...."and it came to pass" it's a very Hebraic phrase. It's written to re-engage the readers. The Holy Bible is full of them. Besides by the fruits you shall know them.
All Marriot Hotels have a copy of both books. Also the Marriott family are Latter Day Saints.
This man "Trent" if he calls himself a Christian he should dedicate his life to proclaim Christ's news and love from his own beliefs and stop attacking others who just believe different than him.
A few questions for you, Trent:
If you can dismiss the eyewitness testimony of mormons claiming to have seen miracles due to the witnesses being 'excitable' and 'primed to see miracles', even out of hand dismissing a story of meeting Jesus on the road as being ridiculous on its face, how can you take the alleged eyewitness testimony of the miracles of Jesus seriously?
You might say that there is no evidence of the disciples being excitable or easily duped, but if you're not a presuppositionalist you would have to say that their leaving their families to follow a street preacher around is a strong indication that they were.
And when it comes to economic incentive: if we assume that the Jesus movement consisted of more than 13 people (the disciples and Jesus himself), then it stands to reason, based on the promises Jesus made to them of their future exalted positions in the kingdom of God (ruling the twelve tribes of Israel) that the twelve disciples held positions of power within the movement. The death of Jesus would then pose a huge threat not only to their belief, but to their social status, to their financial situation, to the entire life that they abandoned their own families to lead. Keeping the movement going with claims of a resurrection seems all but necessary. And if they were indeed the excitable types, they could have convinced themselves of the truth of the resurrection out of sheer desperation.
Finally, we turn to the alleged willingness of the disciples to die for their beliefs, which would negate my previous point. Let's be courteous and say that these accounts are historical. Even so, given that the disciples weren't given the opportunity to recant their beliefs (and that we can't know for sure what these beliefs actually were), this amounts to nothing more than religious believers being killed. People of all sorts of religious beliefs are killed all the time, this does not make their beliefs true.
1: Nah; there is not a tom of evidence for them being primed to give specious accounts. Also, you do realize that in 1st Century Judaism, it wouldn’t have been very unusual for a rabbi to hand-pick disciples, right? Now it’s seen as very cultish, but many rabbis had students; this wasn’t seen as strange. It’s debatable how many people followed Christ, but it probably wasn’t very many people based on the fact many of His disciples left Him when He said “eat My Flesh… drink My Blood.” It goes to show that it wasn’t a particularly popular religious group, which, frankly, had its own Leader crucified. Doesn’t sound like a particularly large and wealthy group. Also, you’re making arguments that just don’t make any sense. Let’s be generous and say there were like 20-25 people following Jesus. At best, these were poor 1st century women, beggars, and the sick. Not a very wealthy group. The Apostles did not become rich because, again, Christianity was not followed by the rich Romans but rather persecuted by them. The Apostles would at best have been “scraping by” as St. Paul says in 2 Timothy that he is working as a tent maker. Don’t know about you, but that isn’t a particulary glamorous job. Also, don’t you think it’s much more likely that they just figured that “well Jesus died and He isn’t coming back. Don’t know what I expected.” They had literally *THE* lowest social status in Roman culture and were persecuted harshly and put to death. Also, you’re assuming all of them had families. Some of the older ones did, but it doesn’t make sense to assume all of them did. Even if all of them did, this just works against your point. Who is gonna preach about some random dead guy, leave their wife (St Paul literally kind of complains about not being able to have his wife with him, but accepts it for Christ’s sake.) not sure abt you, but I’d rather go back home to my wife after all that rather than be persecuted horribly for my beliefs that I made up for… uh… kinda looks like your points are specious now, huh?
I genuinely don’t understand why you think they would be desperate. It’s far more likely they would have just thought that they had been tricked and gone back to the much easier life they had been leading before. Also, you do realize barely 5% of the Roman empire was Christian by the time of Saint Constantine I in 315, right? In the Apostle’s time it was *maybe 0.005 percent, or 0.05-0.1 to be VERY generous.* Also, your point on their willingness to die flops. First of all, I would make the argument that some of the martyrdoms of the Apostles are most likely later legends, but we have strong or good evidence for the martyrdom of either 5 or 6, can’t remember. Even if we can’t definitely prove that the other 6 apostles were martyred, we do know the Romans and J authorities would have persecuted them very severely, which is enough to make someone who made up a lie for no reason to give it up. Also, you’re completely misunderstanding and mis-stating the point about their deaths. The difference between them and religious believers is that they were in a position to know if the Ressurection of our Savior really happened. Most believers are not in that position. The argument is meant to prove that the apostles were sincere believers in something they were in a position to verify with at least some degree of objectivity. God bless and Christ help us,
☦️❤️
Nicely put. All I can add is that the previous post does not explain why James the brother of Jésus and Saint Paul became leaders of the movement. Neither one of them was a follower of Jésus, so their belief cannot be explained by some kind of reaction to post crucifixion trauma @@womboyeckelstein
You clearly have not researched the eye witnesses accounts. Martin Harris stated he saw the plated like you see a city through a mountain. You are holding on to a very weak part of apprentice evidence. I get it I was Mormon for 38 years. Your here watching this as you know the issues. Just open your mind a little more
@@kenny-gee That still makes the mormon claim stronger than that of the ressurection. The only eyewitness account we have of Jesus after his death is from Paul, whose encounter with Jesus was not explicitly physical.
Two of the Mormon witnesses left while the disciples were tortured and martyred without recanting. One had financial motivation while the disciples received nothing but lost everything. Not comparable.
Number five isn’t even an argument, it’s just an obvious restatement of the premise at hand. If the Catholic Church is true, then the Book of Mormon is false. Okay? Well if the Book of Mormon is true, then the Catholic Church is false. You are just restating the basic question at hand in a silly way. You aren’t going to prove objectively the truthfulness of the Catholic Church with philosophical arguments. This seems very myopic.
There are many historical and logical arguments supporting Catholicism AKA Christianity. For example the fact that someone like Jesus and something like the Catholic Church were prophesied by the OT. And the complete destruction of the Temple and of the whole Mosaic Judaism 40 years after Christ started His public activity only confirms that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. In other words Jesus confirms the Old Testament, which confirms Him and the Church. Nothing like that can be said about Islam and Mormonism.
There is more evidence for the authority of the Catholic Church then the ladder day saints. A apostasy as large as that would go against Jesus promise made in the Bible.
Wish you could have focused a little more on their theological claims which are so obviously in contradiction with what Jesus taught and the Faith the apostles received. Arguing about how well the book is written is irrelevant imo.
That wasn’t the debate though. I think maybe delving more into the Bible contradicting the Book of Mormon would’ve been better.
For instance Jesus said you wouldn’t be married in heaven and Mormons whole theology revolves around eternal marriage
@@JJ-zr6fu No, Christ said people wouldn't be 'given in marriage' - if you look at the underlying Greek, that means that people won't be "getting married" in heaven. Christ didn't say people won't be married.
@@OntheOtherHandVideos
Matt 22:29-30, like 20:34-38 they will not marry or be given in marriage, but will be made like the angels in heaven.
Now only if you believe that the angels in heaven are married could you refute this claim..... But we know that they aren't married, not even sure there are female angels.... That's why they rebelled and came down to earth to mate with women.
If someone believes in families in heaven it probably goes against what Jesus said. And Jesus also said if you believe in marriage after the resurrection you do not know scripture.
And if anyone claims otherwise they are strictly going against Christ's word.
@@jawnatutorow Um, again as I said, look into anyone who addresses the underlying Greek.
As for:
"That's why they rebelled and came down to earth to mate with women"
Again, I would suggest you look into what people who understand the underlying Greek and Hebrew actually say that said verses say, rather than bizarre and detached theories predicated on weird English interpretations and assumptions.
@@OntheOtherHandVideos
Well the Greek seems to be saying the same thing... Luke 20:34-35 said the worthy sons of the resurrection NEITHER marry or are given in marriage. It's repeated a few times, likely so men won't twist scripture.
Even if you look past Gen 6 and simply go off what Jesus says, it's clear he's saying there is no marriage for the worthy in the resurrection. And he specifically says we are made like the angels..... Now, we should be able to, in context, understand they aren't married either. Unless we twist a word or two here and there..... But the context of the whole verse is.... There's no marriage in the resurrection.
I saw the debate with Jacob Hansen, I thought Hansen was extremely rude during the cross-examination because he would ask you a question and would cut you off after only a couple of words. I liked how you allowed him to respond to your questions with complete answers. Also, having been Mormon (now Catholic), Jacob wasn't truthful about the Great Apostacy. Read "Preach my Gospel" the book mormon missionaries use to teach non-mormons, Jacob wasn't being truthful.
"He was rude!" That's what losers say.
Christ have mercy on us all.
What did you dislike about Eternal Marriage and exaltation? Why would you gamble on the greatest gifts that God offers his children?
@@HaleStorm49 Good question, you should read what Jesus says about marriage in Matthew 22:28-30.
@@ryrylamby sure, re-read again what Jesus says: "given" in marriage is getting married. It does not mean about staying in whatever earthly marriage people had. And nowhere in the Bible Jesus talks about the future of earthly marriages. So, before suggesting that someone read scriptures, do so yourself.
That debate was wild! I nwver thought the mormon guy would attack the validity of the scriptures to try to bring them down to the level of the BoM. Literally said the accounts from scripture are less reliable than the accounts of mormon apostates. Unbelievable.
He didn’t. He proved your double standard of accepting the Bible but rejecting the BoM using the same criteria.
@@thekolobsociety No Trent explained the differences over and over again. He and you just didnt accept them…..sad to see mormons rejecting the evidence for scripture so they can keep this “standard” its like this: lots of good evidence for events in scripture and some poor evidence for things in scripture. You reject all evidence for scripture since there’s no evidence for the BoM. That’s the double standard not the atheistic mindset of “if there isn’t perfect evidence for every event mentioned it must be false” instead, you guys just say “if exodus has poor evidence, and the BoM has poor evidence, then if we are to believe exodus, we must believe the BoM. It’s so illogical its comical. What about thee historical accuracy of Luke and Acts? What about archaeology confirming events and places in scripture with extreme accuracy such as the 3 minted coins produced in the time of Pontius Pilate? The best you guys have is hoping a lost jewish society will be found in south america? Also the most laughable part of the debate was when trent got into the word count. 268,000 words would not fit on 10 tablets in english, hebrew, egyptian, or aramaic or what any conceivable combination of those languages constitutes the made up language of “reformed egyptian”. The Egyptian book of the dead could never fit on 10 or so tablets in orthodox egyptian. It’s english translation is 44,000 words. The BoM is 6 times that in volume! Wake up bros!
@@thekolobsociety Even non-Christian historians document the thousands of Christian witnesses who were martyred as a testament to the Truth of their faith!!
Mormons only have one guy (with a warrant for his arrest for Ordering a riot/printing press burning) who died in a shootout! LOL!
@@timboslice980 You should take a look at Jerry Grover's lengthy analysis of a small set of "Caractors" copied from the plates. His proposed translation could be completely false, but I think the heavy amount of research shows that the text of the Book of Mormon can easily fit on the plates that Joseph had using something like hieratic and demotic scripts.
You should mention not only the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy but also that he practiced polyandry. The LDS Church, in its Gospel Topics Essays, has even admitted that Smith practiced polyandry. I suspect that polyandry will make even more of an impact on people than polygamy.
Wow, the guy "married" women who were already married. This I did not know.
@@eucharistenjoyer Yes. The Mormons used to deny it but now they are obliged to admit it because of the evidence. His followers also practiced polyandry, including P P Pratt, who was killed by the husband of the woman he married. Smith and Young, etc., were a bunch of low-lifes.
And he would send the husbands on “missions” in Europe so they’d be gone for several years, and he got them all to himself
@@andrewseymore4506 Indeed.
Shoot, you’re going to be surprised when you learn about Abraham
is the geographic and archeological evidence of Noah's ark provable? If not, should we doubt the truth of the entire Old Testament?
The Catholic Church doesn’t require one to believe the flood was literal or global. It’s permissible to interpret it in a few ways.
At the very least, there are many more OT and NT sites and artifacts that you can visit, see in person, or see online.
Show me 1 verified site or relic from the Book of Mormon.
Doubt any book or person who claims to speak for a "God". If "god" was real, they wouldn't need to speak through a human or a book.
@@Downwithtrump801that's why he came down from heaven in the likeness of man and performed miracles for everyone to see and save us all
I’ve read the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon. And have my own experience with each text. Problem is people want to trust others to do their learning for them. (Trent’s obviously got it all figured out in this quick video)
The Bible is amazing.
The Quran denies Jesus his divinity.
The Book of Mormon is a spiritual book. And contrary to what Trent and Twain said, has many beautiful and strong spiritual passages. But you’d just want to believe Trent right? It’s easier to let someone else do your learning for you. You really ought to read all three and make up your mind from your own experience. I mean someone who posits, “Catholicism is true, therefore Mormonism is false.” has some real logical flaws in that statement. But again most humans just want the easy route and to be told what to believe instead of getting it from God. Seek and ye shall find my friends. Or did He say “Follow Trent and ye shall find.”
God didn’t say follow robo and you shall find. Ok, so I’ll follow God to his one holy Catholic Church
I bet there's a lot more credit you give to Mormonism than Catholicism, and there's a LOT more Trent has posted here on this channel which shows that Catholicism is true. That sentence isn't a full logical argument, you're right, it's just the conclusion of said logical argument.
I invite you to see more of the fundamental arguments for Christianity, because although I don't know you personally, I doubt you alone can fully understand geniusly all 3 religions and be the judge above them.
finally someone that actually has more than 2 braincells in this comment section.
@@bikesrcool_1958
he may as weII have d0ne
the pIeth0ra 0f den0minati0ns iIIustrates that there are as many christian d0ctrines as there are christians, trying t0 recreate g0d in their image
and they aII arr0gantIy cIaim every0ne eIse is wr0ng
"f0II0w the g0urd" n0 " f0II0w the sh0e"
fr0m pyth0n`s "Iife 0f Brian"
is the hist0ry 0f christianiy in a nutsheII
jumping 0n the internet bandwag0n, Iike it has, exp0ses the I0ng heId agenda t0 gain c0ntr0I and the c0nstant divisi0n 0ver minutae am0ngst christians,
the den0minati0naI infighting and charIatan pr0sperity g0speII0rs n0w 0n view 24/7
highIight the reaI impact 0f m0dern "0nIine christianity";
c0ntr0I and divisi0n
You can’t trust a man who removes Jesus of his Deity.
1. So, you're saying the evidence is scant, but faith is the belief of things that are true that cannot be seen. Okay, first point debunked. Next.
2. There is a long contiguous history of a literate human civilization with recorded history maintained by the Etruscans, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Europeans. No such contiguous civilization existed in the Americas to record and maintain such a record. This argument facile and baseless. You expect a non-existent contiguous civilization to provide a record as proof? Again, your logic is flawed. We aren't commanded to believe in God by proofs, but by faith, and the words of the prophets. We have prophets, we have them in the same order an manner laid out in antiquity. Christ appointed Apostles, where are your apostles? The apostolic calling did not end after Christ was ascended. Paul is proof of that, as are the other apostles called to replace those who fell. I ask again, where are the apostolic officers that CHRIST appointed? You will find them in one church only. His church, restored by Joseph Smith under the divine direction of the only true head of the Church, Jesus Christ.
3. Joseph Smith DID NOT prophecy that Christ would return in the 19th century. He was not speaking prophetically, he stated an opinion. Prophets are not perfect. Moses struck a stone to bring forth water, rather than commanding it, and for his disobedience he was not allowed to set foot in the promised land. That Joseph Smith's speculations proved unreliable is not a failed test of his calling. It's interesting, you say he can't be a prophet because his speculations aren't prophetic, but his prophecies don't count because other people were speculating the same thing. Yet Joseph Smith did state where the war would start, accurately. I notice you ignore that point, or perhaps you were unaware of it. You also conflate the phrase that "war will be poured out on all nations," as meaning the Civil War would draw all nations into it. That wasn't the prophecy, only that the Civil War would begin a period when war would be poured out on all nations. And indeed global conflicts and wars flared out of control for decades after the Civil War, culminating in the GREAT WAR, as WWI was known, just 50 years after the start of the Civil War. Sounds like "war poured out on the whole world" to me.
Here's a list of all the wars between the Civil War and the start of WWI
American Civil War (1861-65)
War of the Triple Alliance (1864/65-70)
Seven Weeks’ War (1866)
Selangor Civil War (1867-73)
Franco-German War (1870-71)
Acehnese War (1873-1904)
Red River Indian War (1874-75)
Serbo-Turkish War (1876-78)
Anglo-Zulu War (1879)
War of the Pacific (1879-83)
Gun War (1880-81)
Sino-French War (1883-85)
Serbo-Bulgarian War (1885-86)
Sino-Japanese War (1894-95)
Spanish-American War (1898)
Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
South African War (1899-1902)
The War of a Thousand Days (1899-1903)
Acehnese War (1873-1904)
Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
South African War (1899-1902)
The War of a Thousand Days (1899-1903)
Boxer Rebellion (1900-01)
Moro Wars (1901-13)
Russo-Japanese War (1904-05)
Pig War (1906-09)
Mexican Revolution (1910-20)
Italo-Turkish War (1911-12)
World War I (1914-18)
Your understanding of the Godhead is, by your own reasoning, fundamentally flawed. Prior to the Nicene Creed, there were sects in the early church who believed God the Father and Jesus Christ were distinct personages, and both were gods, but that God the father was supreme. This was known as the Aryan creed. Further, the Hebrew word, Elohim is a plural, the singular being Eloah. This caused a schism in the church, among other things, which caused a council to be convened, where the issue was not fully resolved, necessitating another council, where the issue was put to a VOTE! And from it we got the convoluted mess of the triune Godhead where Christ, in Gethsemane did not want to partake of the bitter cup, but said that he would not do his own will but his will because he's God and God is him, and he had to pray to God (himself) to take the cup away, but said, he would do God's will, his will, even though he didn't want to. And you think Mormons are confused. Sorry, but Arius of Alexandria had a better understanding of the nature of God than does modern Christianity. Oh, and please show me the exact passage of scripture that says that doctrine (the word and mind of God) will be determined democratically. When did that change from Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" Where is the verse that says that changed to a vote by council, canonical or apocryphal?
As to the King Follet sermon, that is a third hand account of what was heard by someone who related it to another person who then told it to a third. It is not doctrine. We do believe that, as children of God, we have a divine inheritance, and that doctrine is born out in John's revelations in the Book of revelations, where the talks about degrees of glory. You're right, of course, man cannot become God anymore than you can become your father, but you can become A father. Why is this so inconceivable to you?
Your claim about the plates is speculative and conjecture, not factual, since you've never seen them. Without the ability to physically see them and collect information on the density of the script, or the process by which the translation occurred, this is a matter of sine qua non. It's a non argument.
And the last nail in your coffin for this argument. You lied. Joseph Smith did not die in a shoot out. He was murdered by a mob of 150-200 men. His brother was murdered, and . If you have to lie to make your argument, it's invalidated by the very act. The record of the attack on the jail and the events that occurred are well documented. Joseph Smith. Further, Joseph and Hyrum were promised safety and a fair trial and returned to the custody of Governor Ford. These facts are well documented and verifiable. So either you're lying, or couldn't be bothered to research the events. Either way, your argument that this proves he is a false prophet falls flat. By that reason, every single one of the Apostles were liars and false prophets, as was Christ himself, who was also falsely imprisoned, tried, and executed at the whim of a mob.
4. The argument against New Testament passages in the Book of Mormon. This is answered in one simple statement. "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16. I trust I don't have to tell you who said it. Christ literally says he is going to gather other sheep to himself. Do you think He taught them a different Gospel? Of course not, so why are you surprised to find the same Gospel in the Book of Mormon when the author of that Gospel is the same.
5. Catholicism is true. How? Shall we dive into the wars it financed, the atrocities committed from the papal seat, the child pope, the orgies in the Vatican, or the more recent scandal of pedophilia in the church? Shall we talk about how the nature of the priesthood was changed from priests being married as a requirement of the priesthood, to their celibacy to protect the church's coffers? If that's not enough, the catholic church, not it's members, is an institution that has a long dark history of assassination and power and corruption that invalidates the validity of the church's divine mandate.
Its central tenets are derived from vote, not prophetic revelation, as set forth by God. But none of that matters. NONE OF IT.
For we do not know these things through our feeble and flawed reasoning. When the Christ addressed his Apostles and asked of them, Who am I, this is how they answered.
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for FLESH AND BLOOD HAT NOT REVEALED IT UNTO THEE, but MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Matthew 16:15-17
You use reason, but I have asked God, the FATHER of Christ and us all. And I have received that same witness that Simon received. That Christ is the Son of the Living God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His church. It was restored by his prophet, Joseph Smith, a man who was, like Saul of Tarsus, flawed, but nonetheless called by Christ to build his kingdom. Now you have your reason, and your flawed logic, and the lies of the devil. I have the assurance of my faith and my prayers answered by a loving father in heaven, even God the father, And I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ.
Because after all is said and done, not your word, not mine. Nor your logic or your reason or your arguments, nor mine, can stand against the Son of God or the Father. I have faith in Christ, that he will separate the wheat from the tares. And trust his judgment more than yours, with all due respect.
Hey there, new subscriber! Thank you for your videos on Mormonism. I'm in OCIA and am a Partridge. I truly appreciate your shout out on the ecclesiastical abuse of my x3 great aunts Emily Dow and Eliza Maria. When one looks into it, the Mormon prophet treated his first Bishop like absolute dirt, blamed him for all kinds of issues, so I appreciate your work letting others know about that piece of it.
The story is heartbreaking and fascinating for me. Being kin, I read their histories and can almost feel them crying from Heaven. Abuse. You are very fair and come across in a loving, knowledgeable manner. Can't thank you enough, super glad I came across your site. God Bless!
The argument that Joseph Smith was just a simple uneducated farm boy and couldn’t have made up something as complex as the Book of Mormon is obvious nonsense, there is a difference between being uneducated and being stupid, Smith was well read and familiar with the Bible, with a little creativity he could easily create a complex work.
John Bunyan was uneducated but Pilgrim’s Progress is very complex, ditto with Shakespeare.
True, he was uneducated yet intelligent. However, the naturalistic explanation still seems to explain the data less than the divine explanation in terms of the translation.
@@ItsSnagret there is no evidence that it even is a translation, the argument against its being so that each character would have to represent 80 words seems powerful
@@ItsSnagret The divine explanation is that God helped him, and he got it completely wrong. That's not a good explanation. In fact it seems borderline blasphemous.
@@ItsSnagrethe copied from other books of his time so all Joseph Smith needs is to be is someone who changes a few names and places from other books: that's something even Smith could do .
Compared with Shakespeare and Bunyan the Book of Mormon actually seems like something that was written by an uneducated farm boy.
another day, another banger 🔥
Questions Trent needs to answer in order to intelligently accept his premise that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.
1. Joseph Smith recited the Book of Mormon. Recited from what? How many books would he need to memorize? Is it reasonable to believe that he strung multiple books together and created an original piece.
2. How did Joseph Smith afford metal or brass plates and how did he masterfully piece it all together when we have no record of him knowing how to do that. Kinderhook was only a couple of small cheap, easy to make plates, Joseph had at least several dozen that was felt by a handful of people.
3. If Joseph and friends had demonic visitations, why on Earth would Satan want people to have a close covenental relationship with Christ, reject abortion, strengthen families, and have amazing fruits?
4. What evidence would it take for you to become a Mormon? Why would that be enough or not enough?
5. If you care so much about apostles leaving the Church as a standard of truth, why would you accept Elisha, when Gehazi betrayed him, or Jesus when Judas betrayed him? Or many of the Sons of Isreal who were annointed as leaders who saw miracles yet turned away. Martin and Oliver came back. Why would you worry about their decisions as an indicator of their testimonies, but not the ones in the Bible.
@jacobsamuelson3181 if you study the historical context of Joseph’s environment and that of the ancient Americas you see how Joseph wrote the book and that it’s fully made up. That’s the claim now test the hypothesis. The problem with most lds is they get their information on these topics from other lds apologists so their focus is so narrow and they miss why the actual experts in the field say there is no reputable evidence and why Lamanites and jaredites are not taught in school.
Wrong. If you consider the whole of the evidence, Trent's points would still stand regardless and provide sufficient reason to be skeptical of Mormonism. What evidence would it take for you to reject Mormonism?
The dude literally looked into a hat and made the whole thing up. Then he started a cult and slept with other men's wives. This isn't hard. Thousands upon thousands of authors have come up with much better stories in much less time and even on their worst day were much more virtuous.
@@kuriju88typical patronizing response...... poor dumb Mormon you just don't know..... 🙄
@@Darksouls184 well, that's what Trent should have brought up "the whole of evidence" whatever that is.
Trent says explicitly that “Man can’t become God” at 8:50
I wish he said that in a more nuanced manner because one of the most famous quotes in the Church Fathers is “God became man, so that MAN MIGHT BECOME GOD” St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Theosis/Deification is Catholic dogma. This must be distinguished from Mormon doctrine, because God was not once a man, and theosis doesn’t entail the saints becoming God in such a way where there is no real distinction or merely a modal distinction between them and the divine essence, but it is still accurate to say that the saints become God. They “partake of the divine nature” and at the end of time God will “be all in all.”
@@bman5257 I agree it's very unfortunate for Trent to incorrectly state Christian teachings while claiming to be clarifying differences.
I would disagree. I think Trent’s statement is completely reasonable, especially with the context he is working with (Mormons believing that the greatest of Mormons will become gods like God). Additionally, you and I’m sure everyone else understood what Trent meant when he said “man cannot become God,” (because of the context) however, when you explained St. Athanasius’s point from On the Incarnation, you yourself had to insert nuance to explain what he meant. Also, I would err on saying the saints become God, only because it’s unhelpful, not because it’s not true. First, it confuses people who do not know the context. Second, St. Athanasius’s words are better translated as “so that man might become deified.” The Greek word he uses (theopoiethomen) that we translate as “God” is more related with the idea of participation in, rather than becoming God. And this idea is more cohesive with the theological contexts you use, “divine partakers” and “God will be all in all” from 1 Corinthians 15.
@@ChristIsTheLifeOfMySouli agree
God the Father is a Man. God the Son is a Man. God the Spirit is a Man. God didn't become a man, or used to a man - He is and always has been a man in form and likeness in every way. We were created in His image.
Some get bent out of shape when the truth that God is a man is pronounced, but they already believe the Son is a man - and that the Son is God. So it is illogical to think the Son is a different type of being than His father - it contradicts everything we know. Like father, like son.
@@sonsofpolaris6102 You need to read my entire comment.
Been a fan of your channel for a while and I appreciate your thoughtful approach. An interesting thing occurred to me this time, in that you are in the Bart Ehrman role. When Catholics and Protestants debate, they agree that the Bible is true, and it comes down to which interpretation is right. When Bart debates Christians, they are frustrated because he knows a lot about the Bible but doesn't accept its divine origin. So it's not really a debate because the two don't agree on the data. So how can you prove the Bible is true? In this case, you don't accept the Book of Mormon as having a divine origin, and so the same question arises, "How can one know if a certain book of Scripture has a divine origin?" For both the Bible and the Book of Mormon the answer, as far as I can tell, is that unless the Holy Spirit convicts of us of the truth of the book in question we will never know for sure, and debates are useless to resolve the issue.
Let's start with how John Smith used his cult to benefit himself, as he was a cult leader. Or how John Smith contradicted the bible several times. Or how he obviously mixed free masonry with gnostic beliefs to make mormonism. Or how his "book of Abraham" was actually the ancient Egyptian scroll of the "book of life." Unrelated to Abraham entirely.
It's not even remotely close to arguing from the position of Bart erman. The New Testament is written by early Christians, a religion that was heavily persecuted and yet quickly spread. None of the leaders benefited from their position, in fact Paul lost power and wealth. The new testament does not contradict, it fulfills the old.
Not comparable.
There's a key difference. Jesus and the Church fulfill many messianic prophecies and prefigurations from the Old Testament (and are supposed to fulfill the remaining ones), which gives credibility to both the Old and New Testament. Of these prophecies, the ones which predict the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews are perhaps the most convincing.
Also the eradication of the Temple Judaism in 70 AD, about 40 years since Christ started teaching, and the mentions in Talmud (sic!) about all Yom Kippur sacrifices being rejected since that time, as if God gave them 40 years to make up their minds - that's something to consider.
So even if Jesus didn't actually say that prophecy about the complete destruction of the Temple, the fact that it happened in 70 AD adds a strong argument for the actual establishment of the New Covenant.
That's because 40 years is how long the Israelites were wandering from Egypt into the Promised Land. In 30 AD they started leaving it...
We know what is scripture because the Catholic Church told us what is scripture. The authority precedes the writing.
@@emouselOregon But that doesn't help when you are trying to convert someone who isn't already Catholic. How can an atheist come to faith? I suggest that it is only through the Holy Spirit. They must pray and learn for themselves that (1) God exists and hears and answers prayers and (2) what we read about Jesus in the scriptures is true -- that He is our savior.
@@rockweirdo8147 It sounds like you are getting your information from a bad source (there are lots of those). That's always been the case with the Lord's servants; see Acts 28:22, for instance. If you really want to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet you need to read the Book of Mormon yourself and ask God in prayer if it is true.
No disrespect towards you, but I was not a fan of that last debate.
It wasn’t his best but it’s understandable Mormons are off by themselves and don’t really expose themselves to debate. Trent should’ve used an ex Mormon for debate prep
The problem with the debate was the limited time and scope. The debate was about the book of Mormon, not Mormonism itself. Trent did an admirable job while honoring the debate topic and format. Jacob came across as being focused on winning the debate rather than changing opinions.
@@JJ-zr6fu Is this a joke? Which Catholics are looking for debate partners? Which ones will after seeing how Trent argued against an unprovable position?
@@emouselOregon They picked a topic that is literally unprovable and put the burden of proof on Jacob, and you think it would have gone better if it was on Mormonism??
Wasn't Joseph Smith a free mason.
didnt catholic leaders burn people alive?
yup thats where the endowment ceromony comes from
Religious person points out the flaws and inconsistencies in other religions, but says his is the true one, and doesn't see the irony.
Well at least he's being scholarly and not calling other religions Satan.
Now replace the words Joseph Smith with Muhammad, Book of Mormon with Quran and some other relevant terms and you could publish the same video about Islam. Even the part about the wives lmao just replace 14 with 6
Sounds like you know nothing of either man
@@couragecoachsam the similarities are undeniable and Muhammad married a 6 year old. What about my comment was wrong?
I don't think anyone is claiming that "horses" in the Quran are actually tapirs! 😅
@@MoonMoverGaming Bro that's absolutely what I was talking about good thing you corrected me now these two cults have absolutely nothing in common anymore
Concise refutation here Trent. I spent nearly 3 decades in the Mormon confusion, back home in the Catholic Church for almost 2 years now.
Is the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as defined by Roman Catholicism, an Apostolic tradition?
Thank you for exposing Mormonism. All current doubting members should watch this informative video.
OM Lord Trent! I was waiting for it ! Thanks Sr.❤ the debate was so hard for me to watch 😢 as a former LDS I was shocked how they still make so annoying to cover up all of mess it is since in the beginning of the Mormonism.
Great disingenuous comment! It's only a 'mess', when you strawman real hard like Trent did.
@@Lovecatholicfaith Christianity was a mess too early in its history…. And later for that matter, with the split of the east and west, schism of the Church of England, and reformation in general. Most Christians don’t care about their mess because it happened so long ago.
@@GldnClaw hard to prove that Mormon are a huge lie ! It’s hard to talk to someone who is so much brainwashed and trying everything to prove something that is not real. I was LDS for 35 years! Went to e every single stages in it ! Seminary teacher, institute teacher, templo endowment , relief society president, counselor of primary and so on. Please, please don’t think you can erased from mim all of this knowledge that I received there. Please be respectful. Trent was not LDS and for sure he had a hard time to argue with a LDS . But ex Mo will not have this problem at all.
@@Lovecatholicfaith I don't have to erase any knowledge from you, looks like you're doing it all yourself.
Rule 1 of Ex-Mos: You can leave the Church, but you can't leave it alone.
Also with chariots, there is no evidence native Americans used wheels, or that wheels even would've been helpful given much of central America's mountainous terrain.
The word "wheel" does not occur in the Book of Mormon, so this is somewhat of a Strawman. Since the Hebrew word most often translated as "chariot" in the Old Testament and the Egyptian hieroglyph is used for both wheeled and unwheeled conveyances, is not reasonable to assume that Book of Mormon chariots must wheeled.
100
@@brettmajeske3525there’s no geographical information or archaeological evidence that backs up Mormonism here in the Americas.
He claims Indians were Jewish descendants well we know that’s false for example.
No evidence Indians practiced the Mormon religion historically at all before the time of Joseph Smith.
He’s the American Mohammad nothing more. Baseless claims and a false prophet
@@catholicguy1073 Evidence of horses in the Americas that predate Columbus was found about six months ago. Anachronisms like this in the BoM have been accounted for dozens of times. The presence of horses or chariots does not disprove the historicity of the BoM.
@@nasquamastudios Joseph Smith As A Monotheist
There are three major stages in the development of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of Deity. The earliest stage is represented by the Book of Mormon (1830), the Book of Moses (1830-31), and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (1833). Many passages from these early works of Joseph Smith reveal his belief in monotheism. Here are a few of the numerous examples:
Book of Mormon, Alma 11:26-28
“And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God. And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.”
The Book of Mormon ‘Testimony of the Three Witnesses’ Preface:
“And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”
Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible Isaiah 44:6,8 (left unchanged):
“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer, the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”
The Book of Moses, Moses 1:6:
“And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of my Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.”
Now many Mormons have tried their best to harmonize and rationalize the monotheistic passages in the Book of Mormon with Joseph’s later teaching of the plurality of Gods, by saying while there are many Gods, “there is only one God with whom we have to do, or whom we worship”. But in light of the JST version of Isaiah 44:8 (“Is there a God beside me? yea, There is no God; I know not any”) and a number of other passages like Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-22; 46:9, it’s hard to argue this position.
Joseph Smith as a “Binitarian”
In 1834-35, during the Kirtland, Ohio period, Joseph Smith made a major departure from the Book of Mormon emphasis on the Father and Son as the same person. While still apparently maintaining there is only one God (monotheism), he began to teach there are two persons within the Godhead - the Father and the Son. Theologians call this “binitarianism.” This second stage in Joseph’s teaching regarding Deity is found in the Doctrine and Covenants “Lectures on Faith”:
Lectures on Faith, Lecture Five:
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made . . . They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made and fashioned like unto man.
Lectures on Faith, Lecture Five (question and answer section)
Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son.
According to the Lectures on Faith, the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit (the two terms were not distinguished at this stage), is not a person, but is the shared ‘mind’ of the Father and Son.
Joseph Smith As A Polytheist
The Book of Abraham, first published in 1842, represents the fourth and final stage of Joseph Smith’s developing doctrine of Deity. Here, for the first time, Joseph spells out in no uncertain terms the doctrine of the plurality of Gods:
Book of Abraham 4:2-3
“And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate . . . and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light.”
Expressions such as “the Gods called,” “the Gods ordered,” and “the Gods prepared” occur 45 times in Abraham 4-5. And directly related to the doctrine of the plurality of Gods is Joseph’s teaching that Heavenly Father is an exalted man who Himself has a Father, and whose Father has a Father, ad infinitum.
In a June 16, 1844 sermon recorded in the History of the Church, Joseph described this new understanding that there are many Gods and that Heavenly Father is Himself the offspring of a more ancient Deity:
Joseph Smith’s King Follet Discourse (History of the Church, vol. 6)
“I want to reason a little on this subject (that God himself has a father). I learned it by translating the (Book of Abraham) papyrus that is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven . . . If Abraham reasoned thus - If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also.”
If we look to the origin of God, I would recommend looking at Blake Ostler’s work, a Latter-day Saint who has beliefs on this subject I quite like.
Does Trent seem tired or frustrated to yall?
He did seem upset during the debate. This may just be because Jacob seems so happy compared to everyone else he seemed upset by comparison. I’ve also noticed all of his newer thumbnails have him making very serious or grumpy faces lol
First of all, I'm not a Mormon. 1 - critiquing the fact that Smith wasn't educated. As if God only works with highly educated people. 2- critiquing repetitive phrases, which actually have Hebrew ties of you know your linguistics. 3- Pointing out that humans are imperfect. As if God only works with perfect people. 4- Critiquing geographical references. As if God would only work with people (Native Americans) who keep great historic/geographic records. 5- Artifacts of Horses and chariots have been found from before the Spanish brought some over. I was just watching a documentary about horses that said the north American horses existed long before European settlers came. The documentary was on Native Americans and had no Mormon ties. 6- Critiquing Smith because he wasn't a perfect person again. Surely God wouldn't work with imperfect people. 7- Critiquing the idea that God would help someone translate a language unknown to the reader. As if God is unable to do that. 8- Making claims about Smith running for political office (horror of horrors?) and that Smith had multiple wives. There is NO actual EVIDENCE to support the idea that Smith supported polygamy. He actively preached against it and his actual wife, Emma always said that the idea was evil. If Smith had other wives, where the heck are the children from these unions? The multiple wives trash was pushed by Brigham Young after Smiths death. Read "The exoneration of Joseph and Emma" for additional evidence. 9- "I don't like it" isn't convincing proof for or against the truth of something. Many people claim the Bible is just retold myths. Guess the Bible isn't true then? What a weak argument. Also, independent (non Mormon) linguists have studied the language patterns of the book, and determined that many different people wrote the books. Maybe parts of the Book of Mormon appear similar because it claims the same message of salvation of the Bible. Also, the king James Bible has a lot of language that was modern in that day. 10- Joseph Smith wasn't the first one to claim that Jewish people came to America before Euro people did.... So what? The book of Mormon isn't a complete record of people in the new world. So what? 11- Some other church guys said the Book of Mormon is false. Oh, I guess I'll just believe those guys instead of these other guys. I'll focus on how imperfect those guys are and ignore how imperfect that these guys are.
I'm hearing a lot of reasons that we should limit what God can do because of how weak humans are. I don't limit what God can do. I'm also NOT reading any reasons why the theological contents of the Book of Mormon clash with Christianity. Whenever I ask "What is something in the Book of Mormon that conflicts with Christian theology?" I never get an answer. People start pointing to LDS beliefs that aren't in the Book of Mormon or even in the D&C from before Smith was killed. They can point to nothing within the actual BOM.
If people have never told you the contradiction with the Bible and Christianity you never talk with truth Christian apologist, the first lie that you are not Mormon please give me a break
@@YiriUbic3793
I would love to see you put two chapters (not singular vrs) up form the bible and the book of Mormon and tell me were they contradict make sure to exclude interpolations .
Good luck.
Yeah he's saying he's not LDS or Mormon because there is about 200k people that art trinitarian that read the book of Mormon and believe it. Not sure how you define "mormon"
@Keylimelife, I really liked your observations, thank you for defending the LDSaints, it is refreshing.
@@clearstonewindows I'm not trinitarian either, but I know how to think critically, lol. 👍
@@YiriUbic3793 I've literally gone and looked up multiple essays and videos on supposed contradictions over the last 10 years. Also, claiming I'm somehow a Mormon does not disprove anything I said.
The Book of Mormon has never been proven or validated by any historian or archeologist, not one artifact has been found. Thank you for the truth!!!
yet the "severaI" f0reskins heId as sacred reIics by cath0Iic churches ar0und the w0rId are aII vaIid artefacts ?
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christs of Latter Day Saints I am so grateful for your faith! Hopefully we all can do our best to share the bible and the most important story that has ever been told, the story of our Lord Jesus Christ! Praise God there is so much good in the world. Please continue to share love, kindness and faith in Jesus Christ. Please pray each day, Your Father in Heaven loves your perfectly and wants you to speak to Him! Serve as much as possible, give to the poor and lift your communities! God is good.
Do you have a rational reason to think any of the claims the church makes are true?
Way to not address any of the points in this video.
You seem like a very nice person, but you are serving a false Jesus. And that’s a problem because the word tells us what happens to people who follow false Christs. I hope you find that soon.
Great video. My only feedback is you should have called out Jacob for all the lying he did in the debate. He literally used the word bullseye to describe the NHM discovery when nothing could be further from the truth. He also claimed without citing any source, that "we now know in the 20th century that King Zedekiah had a son named Mulek", he totally made this up. He also lied about Hebrew names "only mentioned in the Book of Mormon being discovered". You let him get away with a lot of grand claims that no respectable LDS apologist would be caught dead making.
Haha, and do tell, what of Horn repeatedly quoting the refuted hitpeice against one of the witnesses that 'he saw the plates with spiritual eyes', that that witness himself refuted in his day as soon as the hitpeice was published?
Jacob quoted this refutation, and then Horn quoted the refuted claim, Jacob called him out on it, and Horn doubled down on that refuted claim again here.
Is Horn ignorant, deaf, or malicious?
Sure, one person was giving out false information, but it wasn't Jacob.
There’s no maps in the BoM because we have no idea where it took place. We know where Jerusalem is.
It's insane how they think they're Christians and worship the same God that we do. It's a huge rip off fan-fic
💯
It's a religious scam, the Mormon church/corporation, big time. Easy to investigate though as they're but 2/3centuries old, and already being found out for their false claims.... Their very scholars and church leaders attest to these falsehoods... They have this mantra that they impose their underling missionaries to chant and repeat, yet at the back of these leaders' minds, they have already stumbled upon the plagiarism and revisionism of their false gospel, and that their religion started as a criminal organisation (and could well still be, due to deception tactics and fraud).....Praying for these realisations to reach down and sideways through our Mormon brothers and sisters, including those who are still very brainwashed. That is, even if some of them might still be beholden and attached to the mormon set of beliefs. They'll hopefully get there.
I've pals who are married to no-longer-practicing Mormons... The latter stick it out yet (not being struck from the mormon records) due to practical reasons. Their clients are all Mormons. This church has a closely knit market and commercial custom....Until the very clients themselves start to drop off from the church.
9 million people ended during the Catholic inquisition and you think you are worshipping God. Give me a break.
@@fightingfortruth9806 😂 you don’t even know the facts of the Inquisition. Go get educated please. Give me a break
Which one are you talking about. If I had to guess it’s the Spanish one and it was the monarchy that did the punishment not the Church. It was the Church that gave people the ability to defend themselves, did something novel at the time to challenge their accuser. Gave the ones who were found guilty of heresy the ability to repudiate it and reject there heresies. The ones who refused the state passed judgment. Get real man. You’re using 21st norms to pass judgement on people who existed hundred of years before you.
That's how Jews feel about Christianity
As a former atheist, when I was made known of The Existence of God, I never thought for one moment to look into Mormonism or Muslim. I knew that were not The Church Our Lord and Savior established. They both sounded wrong from the jump. As Forrest so eloquently said "That's all I got to say about that."
If all you hear about something is from its' detractors, are you getting an *accurate* perception?
If you never thought about it for a moment, then how did you know Mormonism was not the the Church of the Lord?
whoever is creating Trent's new video thumbnails is excellent.
I would liek to note i believe horses were in the Americas before brought over from the old world. The ones in America were hunted to extinction long before Eurasian horses were brought over but did exist.
yeah, I can't find any archaeological evidence for that. Best I see are native american stories of horses, and bones of three horses, dating back to the late 1600s with Spanish heritage.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 that makes sense it's more paleontology than archeological. Look up equus scotti . They would have went extinct about 10,000 years ago. Most of the noth American mega fanna was hunted to extinction with the exception of the Buffalo.
I like the majority of these arguments, and I believe the Book of Mormon is false and their prophet is false, but the argument about "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church" really carries no weight in this context, as their counter argument would be that the gates of hell haven't prevailed against the church. If you characterize what they see as a falling away and eventual regathering as the gates of hell prevailing against the church, then you'd also have to characterize Christ's death as the gates of hell prevailing against Christ.
By saying that the church went apostate & disappeared from the earth for 1900 years until Joseph Smith returned it is in itself saying the gates of hell prevailed against the church. To say that the gates of hell did not disappear from earth at any time since Pentecost, which occurred after Jesus’ crucifixion, is to affirm that the Catholic Church has never stopped spreading the truth, which means that no denomination or group outside the Catholic Church is teaching 💯 truth, which means my denomination is false too; I don’t like it, & it’s very painful to me, but logic demands that answer. I’m not sure if you’re doing mental gymnastics because you don’t want to come to that same conclusion, which is understandable, or if you don’t understand that scripture verse. Either way, if you do want the truth, then pray 🙏🏼 & ask God specifically to show you the answer to which church is the true church. To learn the teachings of the Catholic Church check out “The Catechism in a Year with Fr Mike Schmitz” & the “Divine Mercy Official” channel & the playlists ‘Living Divine Mercy TV (EWTN)’ & ‘Explaining the Faith with Fr Chris Alar’ for longer explanations
This is a very honest assessment. The other problem is that "Prevail" as seen as a final event rather than a process.
There is plenty of evidence that the gates of hell have prevailed in the modern day. The meaning of prevail has remained ambiguous.
@@HaleStorm49Mormonism the reinterpretation of the Bible is what's your problem.
Jesus words are God's words and you all are in idolatry worshipping a pagan Godhead of an infinite regression and men becoming gods which means your Heavenly Father had to have Godparents to birth him as a man who became Exalted to Godhood
.
Unless you believe Heavenly Father created himself which is illogical.
Very well presented video. We are 60-year life-long Mormons with Utah pioneer ancestry, decended from famous Mirmons such as Oliver Cowdry, Martin Harris and Eliza R. Snow... over the past 3 years we went through an awakening and faith crises learning that everything we deeply believed in, sacrificed for, trusted in [and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to over our lifetime] was all a deception. Its been devestating and traumatic to lose our identity, spiritual home, and community [we were branded "apostate" and have been completely shunned for no longer believing]. Anyway, we enjoyed your presentation.
We respectfully do not agree with your argument that Mormonism is false because "Catholicism is true". There is overwhelming evidence one could present to "doubt Catholicism." 😅
However, we mean no disrespect for your devotion and desire no contention. What matters is that we can agree that Mormonism is false and Joseph Smith was a gifted con man and false prophet.
Thanks to the explosion of digital information and ability to fact-check any truth claims, there is a mass exodus of members happening. Of course the Corporate LDS Church has amassed so much wealth and hidden billions, plus vast property holdings, it will continue to perpetuate its lies. It will keep growing in disadvantaged nations - currently booming in African countries. But the best and brightest scholars, foundational families, core membership in USA, Canada, and across Europe are abandoning ship. The Church is a shell of its former glory. All that used to be so wonderful from our youth - the activities, scouting, dances, parties, roadshows, and social aspects creating strong community bonding - has all withered away and has been stripped away.
One last point to add regarding BoM. It was always said to be the "keystone of our religion" and a "record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas" but recently prophets and apostles are now saying it "shouldn't be considered a history book" and trying to walk back past claims which is in direct contradiction to JSmith and a century of past prophet leader claims. Godspeed, friend!
As this is just a rehash of his opening statement in his debate, just go watch the debate
Agreed! As in the debate you can see some of these points refuted (like Horn's quoting of a hit-piece on a witness that the witness himself refuted). Makes you wonder why Horn left in a many times debunked claim . . .
I have great respect for Trent, but I think he is being so defensive because he underestimated Jacob during the debate.
Yep. He’s under informed and it shows
Mormonism and Christianity are equally justified, as the foundation for each rests on the unfalsifiable claim of a god that can do magic. Given this foundation, the only reasonable position is atheism. BOO-YAH!
God is being itself, uncreated and eternal. If there was a time God was mortal, he is not God.
@@HodgePodgeVids1 uhhhh, ever heard of Jesus?
@@lukehanson_God the Son is uncreated and eternal as well, but He became incarnate on Earth at a certain point.
Bro it's God he can do whatever he wants even if that is coming down in human form (he didn't become mortal hence jesus resurrecting from the dead)
@@aidanmurphy6538 What? So then Lazarus wasn't mortal either since he was resurrected?
Again I say what?
@@jameshojnowski8455 two things lol one I'm on your side I agree with what you're saying, I was replying to that first comment about Jesus not being God. I was trying to say that God was never mortal because even when he came down in human form he conquered death. Second, I'm not sure if this answer is right, but Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus didn't raise himself. And eventually he did in fact die after that. Jesus raised from the dead but then didn't die after, he ascended into heaven. Does that make sense? I hope that helped answer your question
Ask the Mormons, who are polytheists, for the exegesis of Isaiah 43:10.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. kJV
Mormons are not polytheists but henotheists
@@thekolobsocietyNo they're polytheists
David Whitmer’s life was in danger from zealous members of the church who wanted to harm him. The lord told him to leave. This isn’t difficult to understand.
He was told to leave the Danites, not the latterday saints
The idea that there is "no archeological evidence for the BoM" is simply false, as Jacob Hansen explained in reference to the old world archeology that lines up SHOCKINGLY well with the events described in the BoM (Nahom, Ishmael's grave, Bountiful in modern day Oman, etc.). We may not know exactly where the BoM events took place in the new world, but that's not reason to just entirely dismiss the historical claims of the BoM, especially considering that the wet, jungle environment of the new world is far less forgiving to archeological artifacts than the dry, arid environment of the Middle East AND the fact that barely any archeological research has been done in the new world compared to places like the Middle East or Europe.
Demons know geography ancient peoples and old languages.
Exorcisms reveal these facts.
@@svenavm07 So, you're telling me that it's demons, and only demons all the way down? Well, if all you have is a hammer...
So you argument is that there is archeological evidence, because the reason we can't find a single bit of evidence is because of jungles... Come on... If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. There isn't an invisible cat sitting on the chair just because we can't see it.
You said Trent's claim of no evidence is false and then proceeded to not show how
Agreed. The environments and the cultures of the people are so different. It's pretty silly to complain that the physical evidence doesn't look exactly the way it does in the Middle East. Plus, Western archeologists have been working on biblical history for much linger than the 1830s.
"If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die for a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or any other denomination" Joseph Smith
And in the end, he died for nobody
He died for his people and for the Lord, when lesser men would have given it all up and fled he faced the music. He knew he was going to die and went anyway.
@LHJlives No, he didn't.
@@president234 he literally did, even in his last moments he tried to draw attention to himself to save the other two men in the room with him. It worked, 2 out of 4 survived. Only deaths were himself and his brother who died just before him.
@LHJlives No he didn't. He found himself in that position in the first place because he couldn't stop fighting with people. That's why he was run out of every state he went to
Thank you for your podcast. As an ex Mormon (25+ years) and soon to be Catholic, I can’t thank you enough for helping me out of a false religion and a false Christ.
Your instruction on the Catholic faith has sustained me through this difficult journey.
Thank you again.
May God continue to bless and sustain you. Welcome home!
I hope you're ready to be forced to swallow The Immaculate Conception of Mary as a 'de fide' dogma. If you even *think* about doubting it, you're not a real Catholic. Are you sure you want to accept this dogma?
Christ was never false! (And he is only one). But there are "many" religions and interpretations. Jesus will come back soon and we'll all see!
I’m surprised you are holding to your criticism of excessive use of “it came to pass” in the Book of Mormon after your debate with Jacob. In Hebrew, the Old Testament has around 1200 uses of “it came to pass,” but in the King James Version about half of the usages of the phrase were reworded in order to avoid redundancy. This quirk is literary evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon having Hebrew origin.
LOL - seriously? It's been known for CENTURIES that Hebrew OT has 1000+ uses of "it came to pass" .... as if 'nobody knew that' before Joseph Smith Copyrighted his BOM - LOL!!!
And it’s not evidence Joseph smith just used “it came to pass” a lot? In all truth he will be judged severely as Muhammad for teaching lies to many.
Also, it is very likely that the reformed egyptian had a single character to represent the phrase. No different from just writing "then" this happened and "then" that happened.
You should add one more point: neither in the Old or New Testament is there any prophecy about Mormonism (and Islam) - except the warning about false prophets.
There are several that prophesy the great apostasy and the restoration, all very clear cut ( unless you apply eisegesis to muddy the waters first)
Why would Christ give a warning about false prophets if there wouldn’t be true prophets? Why would He simply say, “there will be no prophets after Me”?
@@psychlops924 Because there were, are and probably will be prophets in the Church. But they never add or change the Church teaching. That's one of the key signs of false prophets.
@@damnedmadman
What's the point of a prophet that doesn't add or change teaching? It sounds like a job without any work assigned to it.
Most of Biblical "prophesy" is rather vague, but the warning issued in Galatians 1:8 so accurately describes the claims of Muhammad and Smith that it's eerie.
If we drive the conversation to the Great Apostasy, then the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is pointless. Mormon missionaries use their personal witness of the BOM to drive you to read it, but if we direct the conversation to the false teaching of the Great Apostasy, it is more fruitful in the long run.
If the Bible says, "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him", shouldn't I just read the Book of Mormon and ask God about it myself, rather than take your word for it?
Sure, and wisdom from God would show you that all these glaring issues seem to point out that Joseph Smith was clearly not a prophet.
Although, the test that Mormons set is the whole burning in the busom, which is worthlessly subjective, and should seem highly suspect when the Bible tells us that the heart is desperately wicked and none understand it.
Yes the Bible says that but that’s not all it says. It also says to test everything and retain what’s good. That’s exactly what Trent did.
I read the entire Book of Mormon in 2002 and most of Doctrines and Covenants. It was that process that lead me to then study early Christianity and becoming Catholic in 2004.
@@Sousabird Trent has misrepresented a few things here about Joseph Smith. You can find the whole truth about Joseph Smith with a deeper dive on your own. Read Smith's own account, in his own words. Search the Joseph Smith Papers for yourself and then put that to the test. I'm sure Trent is a good guy, but why not ask God?
@@rickerekEvery time an LDS person tells me that. I'm always lead to scripture and evidence that refutes the Mormon church. How do you explain that?
Peer reviewed research from the Berkeley group confirm only a 1 in a 15 trillion chance that Nephi and Alma were written by the same author.
Top tier content. Do a series and unpack all these points, this is devastating
Any chance you have a source for the claim that “school children could memorize the Book of Matthew in just a few weeks”? I’m very interested in the history of ars memoria in education.
Well, Matthew is the shortest book of the Gospel and if one re-reads and hears something enough times, it gets stuck in your brain. I know some people who have chapters of their favorite books memorized, can quote a whole movie on the fly, and are just insanely great at memorizing things.
I’m struggle a bit with memorizing some basic day to day stuff, but there’s still plenty of other long form stuff I can recite off the top of my head. Especially if set against a song or rhyme scheme, which is a pretty technique for memorizing stuff.
The curriculum also used to be a bit more intense for school children than it is now. A basic education included arithmetic, writing, sometimes language (mainly Latin), and reading, which is something some 18 years on America don’t master but still are allowed to graduate 😑
Maybe search “early American education curriculum” or “early education practices” to get a better idea on what people back then actually knew and how they learned.
@@jendoe9436mark is the shortest
1. Its Doubtful you are accurate
2. Its doubtful you know the truth
3. Its doubtful you are honest
4. Its doubtful you know the evidence
5. Its doubtful you are sincere
I was really getting into the arguments against Mormonism and Islam, but then I realized, all that matters is where it comes from. Where and when does it come from? Both Islam and Mormonism fall completely flat at origin. Nothing else really matters to me.
Interesting point, Joshua! -Vanessa
Amen. There is no need to even hear their arguments, and I say that as an ExMormon of 33 years
Don't atheists say the same thing about Christianity? Seems like a pretty surface level argument coming from them, so it's probably not a solid game plan to adopt . . .
Mormonism (Or Lds Faith / Christ Church) Comes from the restoration in the latter days (spoken from the prophet Isiah - in the bible). The USA was allowed to be because of "freedom of religion" (Only place on earth with a separation of church and state) only place where Christ "true gospel" could be practiced and restored (vs in Rome) where at the time the catholic church became more of a "state religion" without divine authority, apostles, prophets (as in days past - when Jesus was here on earth). If you ever watched a really good show, check out the chosen!
@@georgerafa5041 No need to argue! (The truth is what it is).
I don't understand how someone can repeat the same arguments from a debate that were debunked in real time without addressing any of those rebuttals. It shows a lack of integrity, and a disrespect of the person who you engaged with.
Excellent points, well laid out. I am LDS/Mormon and look at truthfulness. Unfortunately, it's difficult to discuss these things rationally with most LDS members.
thank you Trent for the follow up video. Hard to follow your points during the debate with the opponent talking over you.
At least in the debate Jacob could push back against some of these patently false claims. And here Horn is doubling down on patently false information.
Thanks Trent, for mentioning the phrases at 1:23. Im a former LDS and ot became an injoke with my family (actually started by my dad whose never been LDS) to say "AND SO IT CAME TO PASS!!" In a very deep and dramatic voice to emulate a dramatized audiobook of the Book of Mormon. We still do it today infact, even though all of us are nominally Christian and all but one are baptized.
I will pray for you my brother. 🙏
He's just parroting Mark Twain who said it much more pithily.
On top of this, it's an evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Why would you think an ancient book from another language would abide by modern writing conventions? Wouldn't it be a bigger red flag if the Book of Mormon suspiciously sounded exactly the way everyone talks?
An LDS professor of Biblical Hebrew writes,
"The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi (often used to connect two ideas or events), “and it came to pass,” appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel.
As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:20-25); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles.
But why does the phrase “and it came to pass” appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as “and it came to pass.” Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.”
Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as “and it came to pass” in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of “and it came to pass,” which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word.
The Prophet Joseph Smith may not have used the phrase at all-or at least not consistently-in the Book of Mormon had he created that record. The discriminating use of the Hebraic phrase in the Book of Mormon is further evidence that the record is what it says it is"
@@douglasarchibald9504 Amen!!!
Many Mormons are saying Trent lost this debate...but I just don't see it? Jacob's whole argument was to prove that the book or mormon was divinely inspired and he did not do that? Trent however discredited the founders of mormonism, which DOES discredit mormonism all together.
The Romans took the records and accepted them into the "Christian canon" based on popularity, tradition, and provability as having a link to one of the original apostles. We accept that there are records that were inspired by God and should have been included but were not by this uninspired process.
He did lose because he gish gallopped tropes that have been authoritatively researched and disproven many times over. Information that Trent would have known had he spent more than he did prepping for the debate.
@jessekoeven3757
but you do accept the bible as being divinely inspired? But you also believe the church established by Jesus went into apostasy after the death of the apostles? Yet it was the Catholic church in the late 300's AD that brought the world the bible as we know it. When many false gospels and books existed the church guided by the holy spirit decided which books should be including in the bible we know, and you claim is divinely inspired. My question for you is, if the church was in apostasy at the time they compiled the bible, then why do you consider the bible divinely inspired?
@rcwarrior868 Because the portions that we have are divinely inspired.We are still open to additional inspiration, even from those books that the corrupt Romans decreed as false in their uninspired councils.
@rcwarrior868 We decide what is inspired based on the gift of revelation and inspiration given to apostles and prophets. Without those apostles and prophets, on what grounds did the Romans say, with any degree of authority, what was inspired and what was not?
It’s classy to not mention the man was looking into a hat, so I’ll mention it for you. The man had his head into a hat.
@@asamtaviajando8388 I don't see the point of this line of thought. Jesus put mud on someone's face. Can you believe that? He spit on dirt to create mud. Have you ever shaded the sun to see your phone better?
This is just an appeal to ridicule. The Bible has a talking donkey.
I guess this sort of answer is why he can’t say the obvious. It’s not just the hat. It’s everything else, plus the hat. But ok.
@@natedawg2020 there is much in the Bible that the church does not require you to believe literally. Much of it can be interpreted in other ways, and always profoundly. Mormons HAVE to believe this guy, with this record, looked inside a hat and saw divine words.
Divine words that seem to borrow a lot from books people back in the gold plates time couldn’t have possible know about. Why wasn’t he looking at the gold plates?
It would have been nice to hear your response in this video to some of the objections raised in the debate. It seemed like the Mormon debater addressed many of these fairly well in your debate.
How do you know there were at most 40 plates? What is your source on the sheet thickness of the plates?
9:43
Everybody gangsta until Trent pulls up the golden plates himself 👀
/s
Are you saying that if, at some point in the future, the geography of the Book of Mormon is scientifically verified as authentic, you'll then believe it is true and convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Except it's been verified as being false, even by Mormon archeology.
@@rockweirdo8147 How has it been verified?
@@natedawg2020the lack of evidence for great civilizations mentioned is proof that it's manmade lies. Same with the absolute lack of genetic proof and the many anachronisms. Your apologist didn't remotely dispel those in the debate.
@@georgerafa5041 To restate the painfully obvious as Jacob did in the debate, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a well-respected Harvard archaeologist named Bill Saturno who said that of all the Mayan sites that we know exist, we have excavated less than one percent of them. Of the fraction of sites where they have done excavations, he says they’ve only excavated about a tenth of the sites.
Any inferences you are making about current archaeology are based on only knowing an estimated 0.1% of known Mayan sites.
Lack of Jewish DNA is also expected. Lamanite becomes a metaphorical term within the Book of Mormon timeline and they are implied to have interbred with other inhabitants.
Latter-Day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the founder of BYU's archaeology division(New World Archaeological Foundation). NWAF was financed by the LDS church to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. After many years of diligent effort, this is what Ferguson wrote in a letter about trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon: "...you can't set the Book of Mormon geographically down anywhere-because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt - archaeology. I should say - what is in the ground will never confirm what is in the book."
In fact, according to the National Geographic Society, “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past, and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.”
In the mid 1970’s, President Spencer W. Kimball made a statement that should have stopped these “faith promoting rumors.” The Church News published the statement, which said that people should stop looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, for there is none. Perhaps he finally realized that it was too embarrassing to insist on Book of Mormon archaeology since professors in the Church’s own University had started to deny publicly that there was any truth to it.
LDS Professor Dee Green, in Dialogue, summer of 1969, pp. 74-78, wrote:
“The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles of books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists… no Book of Mormon location is known… Biblical archaeology can be studied, because we know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any location for that matter) were or are….”
Thomas S. Ferguson was a firm believer and he was sure that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. He was an attorney and believed that he knew how to weigh the evidence, once it was found, and a lot of “evidence” was found; but unfortunately for the LDS Church, the evidence did not have any connection to the Book of Mormon. Ferguson spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and 25 years of his life, as a head of “The New World Archaeological Foundation,” funded by the Church. But in spite of all the efforts, by 1970, he had come to the conclusion that all had been in vain, that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, and that Mormonism was not true.
Another example is B.H. Roberts, noted scholar and a General Authority in the Mormon Church, whose secret manuscript has only fairly recently been published, and who had come to question the Book of Mormon quite some time before Ferguson did. B.H. Roberts’s typewritten manuscript of more than 400 pages, titled Book of Mormon Difficulties was written sometime between 1922-1933. In this manuscript he admitted that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with what is now known from twentieth century archaeological investigation about the early inhabitants of America. After going into a lengthy explanation of impossibilities in the Book of Mormon, he also says that he has come to discover things he didn’t know earlier in his life; for instance, that Joseph Smith did have access to a number of books that could have assisted him and given him ideas for the Book of Mormon.
Odd to hear a member of one religion trashing another. Yeah, like I'm FAR more likely to agree with the guy who thinks that wine literally turns into blood. I have no problem with either religion, except for the fact that they are both equally contrived.
I think you could have structured your arguments better especially on number three: Joseph Smith was a false prophet. This seems to be weak circular reasoning when you start out the video saying if you can disprove the Book of Mormon then you can disprove that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Joseph Smith said “a prophet is a prophet only when acting as such.” It seems contradictory to say Joseph was intimately familiarly enough with the Bible to produce the Book of Mormon, but he must have missed the part where no man knows the day or hour of the second coming not even the angels. Joseph obviously did not think he was making a prophecy when he was asked for his opinion about when the second coming would happen. He’s allowed to have his personal opinion as a man which may be wrong.
The attack on section 87 as a false prophecy is cliche and weak. Joseph accurately prophesied specific details of the civil war 30 years in advance including that the war would start in South Carolina and that the South would call for aid from Great Britain and other countries. Unlike you have falsely inferred, this prophecy does not insist that the American Civil War would incite war among all nations. Joseph lists all the details of the Civil War using commas, and then uses a semicolon, and then he says “and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.” Why use a semicolon instead a comma as he had previously done? The semicolon shows a separation of the ideas. World War did happen after the Civil War, but not necessarily as a result of it. To say this is a false prophecy is a stretch. You have misread without attention to detail.
A Few False Prophecies of Joseph Smith:
*In 1835 Joseph Smith prophesied the Lord’s return within 56 years (History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 182). By 1891 this was proven to be a false prophecy.
*In 1843 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown and wasted within a few years if they refused to redress the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri (History of the Church, Vol. 5, pg. 394). The United States government has never formally redressed any wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri and the government still stands nearly 170 years later.
*In 1832 Joseph Smith prophesied that the present generation of Mormons would not pass away before the temple of the New Jerusalem would be built in Zion, Missouri (Doctrine & Covenants Section 84). The Mormons were forced to flee Missouri and no temple was constructed there in Joseph Smith’s lifetime or within the generation that witnessed this prophecy.
*In 1832 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States civil war would eventually engulf all nations (Doctrine & Covenants Section 87). This prophecy did not come close to being fulfilled. Joseph Smith made many other false prophecies in his lifetime. By the standards of God’s word, he must be labeled a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
The nullification movement arose in SC-Smith’s “insight” here was just a reasonable guess.
@@joksal9108 My point remains that these are absurd grounds to claim Joseph Smith was a false prophet if nothing in the prophecy was incorrect.
I agree it’s not overly impressive to have predicted a Civil War because of slavery. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams expressed concerns in the 1820s that slavery would lead to civil war. Many newspapers and editorials were speculating about it in the 1830s as well. However, Joseph Smith did accurately prophesy several more specific details 30 years in advance. Whether or not this is impressive to you or me is not relevant to the unsubstantiated accusation that Trent made about it being a false prophecy.
@@joksal9108 My point still stands that it is not a false prophecy, which makes Trent’s argument bad. I also am not overly impressed by this prophecy, but that isn’t relevant to whether this was a true or false prediction. It was clearly a true prediction.
After watching that debate, I concluded the only way you could think Jacob won or even did a good job is because you either didn’t recognize when he was misrepresenting or exaggerating details, or didn’t recognize that Trent refuted the vast majority of his points. I thought Trent handled the cross examination beautifully and I actually laughed at the “filibuster” comment.
I also found it incredibly ironic that Jacob would accuse Trent of leaving out details when that’s exactly what he did repeatedly. A few notable examples are “bountiful,” and Smith’s apparent lack of education coupled with Emma’s testimony of Smith’s inability to write.
Mormons actually searched this “bountiful” area and found nothing. Surely Jacob knew that.
There is literally a page dedicated to Smith’s writings on the Joseph Smith Papers. You can read and see for yourself that Smith was more than capable of writing. The very first “first vision” account is written by Joseph Smith. And according to the LDS website, Smith was surrounded by teachers and loved to learn.
As for Emma’s testimony, she also lied about Joseph Smith’s polygamy in that same interview. SURELY Jacob knew that.
It was frustrating listening to the constant exaggerations and misrepresentations. That is, until Trent very clearly refuted them.
I don’t remember the quote exactly, but I once heard it put something like this, “The entire land could be dug 50 feet down and the Mormon would say the evidence was in the 51st foot.”