Jim Bennet is awesome and is a minor hero in my opinion. To be a major hero you got to save a life…lol. He was so impressive how he discussed the with Reels and Dehlin with regards to Jeremy’s CES letter. This was a nice interview here on this video to get some further background. I may not agree with Jim on his MO with respect to our relation with the anti or ex-Mormon community and in defending the doctrine as separate from leaders mistakes (specifics can’t be provided in this post because of length). But, he is very intelligent and learned on the church history. BTW, his dad was incredibly kind to my wife and I on several occasions when we were asking questions of certain geo-political events that were occurring. In conclusion it is odd that these folks like Runnels, Dehlin and Reels are always attacking the moral standing of the church’s leaders but Jim will give them the charity they don’t give.
I am not convinced the mention of "skins" is ever anything but metaphor- there are many sermons, Jacob, etc where skin/garments/clothing is discussed in terms of color and staining, and the early Lamanite people are described as a skin(as in, animal hides)-wearing people. Their skins (metaphorically, their souls) are cursed with blackness because of their cruelty early on. The more time i spend studying the Book or Mormon, the more i realize it is a solemn condemnation and warning against racism, violence, classism and materialism.
This is great stuff Stephen! Jim is incredible and was an important part of my reconstruction after my faith crisis. This kind of content is so important.
As a person that lost his faith and the CES letter was part of it I am looking forward to watching these episodes and get Jim's thoughts. I have watched Jim on Mormon Stories Podcast and have a great respect for his views and appreciate him tackling the hard stuff. I will give my opinions after I have watched them.
That's a good perspective to have, I admire your openness to hear Jim's take and I think it's good your respect him, even if we don't agree or come to different conclusions!
This was one of my crisis of faith issues. But I got on my knees and asked our father in heaven what was the truth. And wow did he answer. That same day, answers were coming in so fast I could barely contain it, much less write it all down. I've been a member for 55 years, and I'm just now researching all this stuff. My faith has returned many fold , and haven't looked back. I just got through researching the Spaulding manuscript. And it's amazing how it is not even close to being the same . And Sidney Rigdon wasn't even a member yet, and so he didn't write it for Joseph Smith. He didn't even meet Joseph till nearly a year later after the book of Mormon. Was written. And so the book Mormonism unveiled, where they quote Willard Chase( who was a Methodist minister, actually used dark arts to try and find where Joseph hid the plates, he even hired his sister Sally Chase , who used a green piece of glass ad dark arts to look for the plates. Just do a research on it, it's all out there. And it was Hurlbut that started most of these rumors, he was going to be excommunicated, but talked his way back in. And Joseph k ew he was lying. But then went out and started laughing and started bragging he fool old Joe Smith and his God. This for him excommunicated. He then said he would wash his hands in the blood of joe Smith. And he went out of his way to harm Joseph Smith and the church.
@@MrRickb75645 I spent 15+ years studying church History. You assessment of Sidney Rigdon sadly is wrong. There are several eyewitness reports of Rigdon meeting smith before 1830 and proving they did NOT meet before 1830 is very difficult. There is a new book out by Lar's Nielsen that is even more eye opening in regards to the Spaulding - Rigdon connection and Dartmouth College and the works of Athanasius Kircher. The fact BYU bought all of the Kircher documents from Dartmouth college in 1979 and 1980 and then vaulted them for no one to see, even now you can't see them is very very dubious. Also there is a great amount of Spaulding and Rigdon writeprint found in the Book of Mormon. Like 50% Spaulding and 40% Ridgon writeprint..
I enjoy Jim Bennett's approach, and I like him a lot. I left the church before I read the CES letter. I am strangely chuffed that Jim prays in the same way I do, and now I can't get Fiddler on the Roof out of my head! Thanks for bringing Jim to us.
I’m not LDS but studied it in the early 1970’s. I always wondered why some significant validation of Smith and the BOM has never been discovered. Like discovering the Reformed Egyptian language or concrete evidence of a Nephite civilization. As a skeptic I just thought the whole story was too improbable without a significant validation discovery. My 2 cents.
I think evidence for Reformed Egyptian and for the Nephites civilization actually has been discovered. But there are too many varying instances of both that no Mormon wants to claim any of them just yet.
Actually there has been a lot of stuff coming up the Heart Land area of the US. Watch some of the videos from Wayne May, Rod Meldrum and Michael P. There are others but those are the ones I like. Now even the non Mormons are finding things but they don't know about the LDS church history so they can't put it to anything.
I am not LDS, but you must understand that truth is ultimately about faith. Validation of doctrine can only ever truly occur in the life of the adherent through experience - does the doctrine make them more like Christ? As a Protestant Christian, I am aware that much of the historisticity of the Bible can certainly be questioned, particularly many of the larger themes of the Old Testament. But by living out the premises of the Bible we can find God, find salvation, find our Redeemer. We can be fundamentally changed by God through the words and practices advocated within the pages of the Bible. I can attest to this in my own life. My point? I have met many LDS who can attest to the same. LDS scriptures can make people more Christlike - so most other arguments again LDS 'truthfulness' are ultimately useless. The big questions must always be, is God glorified and will I be more like Christ? That's all that matters.
@@rutherglenroad8109 I am LDS and I know that I am trying to be like Jesus. I am not perfect but no mortal can be perfect but we can all do good unto our fellow man and that is where my heart is.
There is a great deal of validation that has accumulated over the years. However, people tend to forget these once they become common or accepted knowledge. For instance, the existence of ancient plates as a method of documenting important histories was essentially unknown in Joseph Smith's time, certainly for Jewish records. He predicted it, and it is now supported by archaeological evidence. Similarly, people in Joseph Smith's time thought of the native Americans civilizations as quite simple, and not advanced or populous. And now we know these ancient Americans were quite advanced and quite populous, as they are described in the Book of Mormon. Examples of predictions made in the Book of Mormon that are now accepted in American archaeology include large cities, roads, complex language, trade, architecture, temples, and so forth. Check out the relatively current LIDAR research being done to map ancient cities in the Americas. Not to mention the bullseyes related to the city of Nahom and the Bountiful region on the Arabian peninsula. There is a great deal of evidence that the Book of Mormon is a Hebrew document, including complex ancient poetry, linguistic constructions that would be common in the ancient Hebrew of the time, but are very strange in English, etc. There is the discovery of multiple literary "voices" in the text, evidence of ancient American cultural influences in Book of Mormon context, and on and on. There are plenty of evidences that don't get much of the limelight because they don't support the majority/opposition, who are quite vocal, and they continue accumulating. To be informed on this, one has to search out the research being done, and not assume that if they exist they would be headline news.
Time 1:51. Right you are, Jim. I heard a Baptist preacher say he met the same Jesus in the pages of the Book of Mormon that he met in the words of the Bible. 😊
I have honestly never met anyone who left the Church over a different word . A misplaced “the “ or an “and “ is NOT why people leave the Church . . I am moving on to part 2 hoping for more meat . If someone is leaving The Gospel over a word they have very little testimony . Jim is so knowledgeable . Great discussion on a timely topic . Too many members led astray by poorly researched internet “information “ .
Jim is able to make critical statements of others and others' interpretation of issues related to the church because of his refusal to "debate". By setting the parameters which require his views to be given equal weight, without serious pushback, he avoids having to defend his views against strong pushback, despite many of his views being contradictory to themselves, and to the positions and statements by the church and its apologists. I have seen this in a reddit discussion with him, in which I pushed back pretty strongly (but politely) on some of his views about prophets. In response to apparent contradictions and dodges, he suddenly complained that the discussion was becoming hostile and ended it. It's easy to justify your statements and positions when you run away from anything approaching true "debate". When you set parameters for the discussion that forbid your statements to be strongly challenged, you can continue to share them with confidence. I respect him for having discussions with people like Bill Reel and Jeremy Runnells, but let's not pretend he's stepping into the lion's den when he insists on limits to how he can be challenged. But he's perfectly willing to go on interviews and podcasts and make critical statements about people when they're not there to ensure his criticism is fair and/or accurate. He's certainly expanding the limits of his bubble of an echo chamber, but he hasn't left it completely.
1:01:57 this is a great point Jim. Our language is limiting. Think of it this way, sometimes you can get an emotion across much more clearly through music than through text.
Great conversation. I once wondered why the Church (on Sundays, in seminary and institute, etc.) focuses almost exclusively on doctrine and invitations to receive one's own testimony through personal revelation - and didn't spend more time on apologetics, philosophy, or reason-based arguments for Christianity and "Mormonism". After my own journey through the CES Letter and other such material, I've arrived at a space where it seems to me that the final destination is still the same, i.e. both paths end in the need for testimony through reveleation. That said, I'm grateful for all those who put in the effort to provide apologetic material to combat the issues, both legitimate and illegitimate, that confront believers.
Yeah I agree church focuses more on the scriptures and doctrine rather than apologetics and controversial history! Yes certainly a revelation or testimony is essential to maintain faith
At a low point in my faith, I decided that I had to at least treat the Book of Mormon as a Divinely-revealed, Divinely-created myth - distinct from "inspired fiction." In other words, if it were a product of some process similar to (but *not* identical with) automatic writing, judging by my experiences and reflections on mythopoeia and mysticism, and admitting in "plain humility" and "real intent" that the book is powerful (and holding on to the factual attestation of Bountiful too), I had to re-engage with it with a renewed commitment: I had to at least take it seriously within its own frame, and I made the decision anew to receive it as what it claims to be. It has continued to reward me ever more richly. I can accept Orson's and Jim's idea about the Mulochites. I don't require every particular of the authors' belief regarding deep antiquity (such as the Flood) to be factual at face value. They believed what they believed, and God met them there. One of the main messages of the Book of Mormon in my experience is that revelation is pragmatic rather than absolute.
I also grew up in Calabasas and recall Jim performing the lead role in the high school production of The Music Man (he did a superb job) and his father singing in the ward choir. Fun memories. Enjoying this conversation!
I admire Jim for engaging the issues because open dialogue is necessary between believers and critics. Let us all be scholars like Dan Vogel or Brent Metcalfe and courteous/kind/compassionate like John Hamer or Jim Bennett.
Thank you Jim, and Murph! Great interview! Love your channel! (Murph, you mentioned a great interview with a Chris… could you tell me the name of the interview please? I was trying to find it on your channel… but not sure which one it is.) I love all your posts! 🔥
@@mormonismwiththemurph I watched your interview with Leo and his story of coming back… you mentioned an interview you did with his friend Chris and a miracle that brought him back to the faith… but maybe I did misunderstand. I’ll go back to the comment you replied to. I’d love to hear that story if it’s not a misunderstanding. 😂 (I love love love your refusing to get angry and hateful in responding to those who attack and slander the church. You use Christ like responses and it is so inspiring!☀️)
I love the explanation of how a personal revelation works at around 1:09:00. It just "happens". It reminds me a little bit of Dr. McCoy's reaction to gaining more knowledge through "The Teacher" in the Spock's Brain episode. He just smiles upon learning how to do an impossible surgery and says "yes, it's so simple. A child could understand.". I think we for some reason overcomplicate what revelation really is, and at the same time minimize its reality.
See this is why I don't understand why not just answer the question.. He's not attacking he's trying to make sense from the Book of Mormon. Like millions of fellow Mormons. If they leave then they just leave. But give them that right to make that personal decision alone. By looking for ways to explain the wrong things to keep members is more wrong. But don't make people feel like they're stupid for having common sense. Joseph Smith was just a man that God chose but everything he did and said didn't always come from God. They're many things I don't believe but my choice is to stay despite my race was discriminated against and no one can make me believe that was from God, does that make me stupid, no I had free agency. He got a lot right but wrong as well. Stop covering up the things an anointed man chose to do something wrong that discount the Book of Mormon. People not walking away for him being a man, people are walking away now because the higher ups is choosing to explain away his wrong doing and all the Presidents that followed him as well. I'm black and how Brigham Young was President is beyond my belief Not answering his questions is the reason the book CES Letter came about at all.
Brigham young was one of the first converts. He taught some false doctrine that was his own opinions. It never became official doctrine or revelation since many of the 12 disagreed with him. Things like blood atonement, adam god hypothesis, curse of cain etcetera. and those teachings were a product of his own thinking not divine revelation. Its also obvious that the preisthood ban was his own opinion and reaction to certain events. One thing is he wanted to convert white southerners who wouldnt join if blacks could have the preisthood. Was that the right choice? I dont think so. But it was a choice he made. And it stuck longer than it needed to because even though the majority of church leaders wanted to change the policy, there was always one who disagreed and it has to be unanimous. Its sad to see that despite God wanting to reveal his truth, sometimes it's a longer wait than it should be for people to come around to it.
1:27:30 and 1:32:18 For informational purposes… Mulek was a son of the Old Testament king Zedekiah (about 589 B.C.). The Bible records that all the sons of Zedekiah were slain (2 Kgs. 25:7), but the Book of Mormon clarifies that Mulek survived (Hel. 8:21). Zarahemla was a descendant of Mulek, Mosiah 25:2. The people of Mulek joined the Nephites, Mosiah 25:13. The Lord brought Mulek into the land north, Hel. 6:10. All of Zedekiah’s sons were slain except Mulek, Hel. 8:21. Mulek, according to the Book of Mormon, was the only surviving son of Zedekiah, the last King of Judah, after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon states that after escaping from Judah, Mulek traveled to the Americas and established a civilization there.
@1:04:09 "Stiffneckedness, which isn't a word. Joseph Smith sort of made it up." I don't know if Jim is trying to say that the specific variant of "Stiffneckedness" isn't a word and that Joseph Smith made that up, or that "Stiffnecked" also isn't a word. Because "Stiffnecked" is definitely used in the King James Bible. That seems like a silly thing to say "stubborn" is a word, but "stubbornness" is just a made up word. I agree with Jim that Joseph Smith was more than a passive participant in the translation process, but this seems like a weird and unclear point to back up that idea.
My brother read the God makers. He wouldnt return to church afterwards. I told him a stroy my mother related to me. She was at the tempme one day, and met a brother of the church who was an ex-missionary, who was walking to an appointment, when the holy ghost told him to go into this evangelical meeting they were walking by. He started to just go on , when he recieved the same message. So he explained everything to his companion. And they went in. And once in , theu were shocked to see the author of the god makers, was sitting there as one of this churches guest. And thwy were talking about the book. That is when the holy ghost tomd this missionary to confront this man. And so he did. He asked him weretn you an ex mormon? And the man was shocked. But he could not lie,.for the holy Ghost made him tell the truth. So he answered yes. Werent you excommunicated for adultry? And the man again answered yes. And then you came back and were reinstated, but then again you committed adultery. And were excommunicated for the last time , and you are lying in this book because your angry at the church? He answered yes again..the preacher then asked the man to leave. And he did. That is when the missionaries left after that.
Jim, your explanation for the SAME EXACT errors in the King James Version of the Bible being in the Book of Mormon that is supposed to be translated from an ancient record predating the King James Bible by centuries is missing the point entirely. It’s almost as if you don’t understand the argument he’s making because you’re not addressing the CES Letter’s argument.
Wait - I thought all I did was insult Jeremy Runnells the entire time. How did an actual argument get in there amid all my endless ad hominem? If you’re going to criticize me for never making an argument, it’s probably best not to cite my arguments, especially when you misrepresent them. It makes it very hard to take you seriously.
Are we defining "same exact errors" as "I prefer this other Bible version, therefore THAT version is in error"? I know people have said "Joseph had Bible X which had this error" yet no one has shown Joseph ever having, much less using, THAT particular Bible. So, can we not with the superficial suppositions? Make the full case or be quiet, yes?
I think it is worth noting there is a difference between "error" and "variation". Translators often have multiple ways to render words and phrases into other languages. While Runnel claims it is highly unlikely that that two independent translators would choose the same variations, he didn't actually study how common that practice is. Especially when a common culture touchstone exists. Victor Hugo liked to include quotes from Greek philosophers in his stories. Translators specializing in English/French translations, would not necessarily translate the French translations into English. More often they would find a recognized preexisting English translation and use that instead. This is a common practice dating back for 100s of years in the real world. Finding simular practices in the Book of Mormon does not mean much.
@46:04 Me: "Jim, who taught 'people like Jeremy Runnells' how to think in black and white? The church is either 100% true or it is a fraud? Uh, the LDS Mormon leaders - the top 15 guys - have taught that! Gordon B. Hinckley was a clear example. C'mon. Seriously?"
I agree I was brought up with black and white thinking such as Prophet will always teach the truth and never teach false doctrine and everything in scripture is 100% the word of God. So I empathise that we were brought up being taught to have this worldview
There is always this tension set up between shoring up vs. exploration. I was raised non-lds and found the emphasis on orthodoxy, unsatisfying; I was drawn to heresy. After joining the Church I was put off that so many of the doctrines (which I found false) from orthodox christianity had infiltrated the Church and were being taught as official doctrine; is good to see this is changing. E.g., the general handbook of instructions was a massive, loose leaf, secret, book providing detailed instructions on too many topics; it has been superseded by a public, manual with mostly procedural instructions.
Very good conversation. I always enjoy listening to Jim Bennett interviews. I really would have liked to see him win mayor of Sandy. Jim, how do you personally approach verses like Ephesians 6:4 (a forged letter of Paul), Isaiah 28:10 (a major KJV mistranslation), and verses from the long ending of Mark (believers handling snakes and drinking poison) making their way into the Book of Mormon? I can understand Joseph deciding to add a little "artistic license" to some of his verses to make them resonate better with a 19th Century audience, but why would he have included phrases that erroneously made their way into the KJV Bible?
Jim, I am glad that you are able to see the value behind the CES Letter as well as other critics points. It's nice to know that Jeremy Runnells is always willing to make corrections.
@@mormonismwiththemurph Yes I think open dialog is important to getting to the truth. I mean sure it is nice to believe that the beginning of the Church was so faith promoting, but I think it is better to see the dirty beginning of Joseph Smiths Nocisist behavior, with criminal leaders that used religion to hid their counterfeiting operation, secret murders, plundering, theft, manipulation, fraud, arson, adultery, and all the dirty. It really helps us to see how God can even work through wicked people to eventually create one of the greatest religious societies on earth. It's great to see that we don’t accept everything Joseph Smith said, which opens the door to develop the society into something even better.
They seem more like backtracking than corrections to me. My teenagers do similar things when they know they're telling a lie but aren't ready to be honest yet.
@@DannyAGray Well maybe it is backtracking, but that's probably what is needed to get people comfortable with the truth. Police officers will do this in interrogation rooms going over the story again and again while at the same time making the truth seam like normal behavior or even hiding the truth seaming like normal behavior.
I respect this conversation and dialogue but i find it odd Jim seems so confident in some of what I believe to be the weakest arguments. 1. If the Book of Mormon scripture itself isn’t the revelation then what is the revelation? Also love how this has changed from a translation to a revelation. Why did he even need the plates then? 2. If you argue that the racist curse of black skin is a result of a Joseph smith or Nephi being racist, how could you not regard the Book of Mormon to at least be partially racist? 3. People don’t, in Jim’s word, “scream” at the change in the introduction because scripture is getting changed. That’s not the point, and Jim knows that. Everyone knows it isn’t scripture (although it could be contended that if the Book of Mormon was essentially just a revelation, that the introduction was also a revelation, or at least inspired from God. So did God change his mind about the American Indian ancestry? And if not who did? Was the change a result of revelation? If so, why was it not done before DNA pointed out the fact the American Indians in fact came from East Asia and not from people who would’ve come from Jerusalem.) The Church has realized (probably based on DNA evidence) that the Lamanites are not the principal ancestors of the American Indians. This implies that they might made up a small part of some small group of American Indians, but is drastically different from what early church leaders believed where they thought all native Americans were ancestors from the Lamanites. This is still a huge belief among most Mormons today. This change affects the mainstream understanding of the Book of Mormon history and Jim is trying so hard to shove it under the rug. If the introduction said “principal” based on the current understanding of the time, and a change was brought about based on new scientific discoveries and a greater understanding, to me, a prophet is no longer a prophet seer and revelator. They are just a man trying to make their best judgments. Lastly, if it was the other way around and it was determined through DNA evidence that native Americans DNA had Jewish or middle eastern lineage, apologists would argue this as evidence of the Book of Mormon and would laugh at any critic who made similar arguments saying the dna isn’t conclusive. 4. If scriptures and profits are fallible, and can get things wrong (and in the past have) how should they still be regarded as not only highly valuable but divine and from God? At this point they seem useless.
DNA is nothing to be concerned about, I have studied genetics and eugenics as I'm a disability advocate with many disabilities primarily genetic. Critics have made an extremely oversimplification, genetics are not that simple. When humans move from one environment to another (Israel to N. America) our genetics adapt to environmental changes such as foreign germs that were not in the previous environment so we can survive. Generation after generation a process called mutagenesis occurs producing mutations. Most mutations die while some persist, the ones which persist enhance the adaptability of a population, and accelerates the pace of evolution. New metabolic pathways can build on top of mutations producing new mutations. For example, Down Syndrome did not exist among the human population until the 17th century AD, some N. Africans have Down Syndrome and it did not exist among our ancient ancestors, that's one example. Then it gets even more complicated through epigenetics, what happens on top of human genes causing diseases and cancers with some cancers inheritable producing new genes. DNA, RNA, Double Helix, nucleotides, mutations, proteins, alleles, chromosomes, epigenetics, environmental changes, evolution and more all contribute to genetic evolution. Clearly, critics are oversimplifying DNA and genomic research.
If only Mormonism had a few problems instead of hundreds. Jim is church broke and utilizes "confirmation bias" to justify his continued membership. But, shouldn't a so-called Apostle be answering these questions instead? What is their major malfunction?
Richard, What faith or world view has less problems than the LDS Faith? Your uncharitable take is unfortunate. Apostles don't do this. Not their role. Please rectify your expectations and you'll be disappointed less frequently.
@@scottvance74 It's founding prophet, Brother Joseph, restored the priesthood and Gospel fullness. You don't have to believe that. You have the freedom to align your faith (and everyone has faith in a system of beliefs with some religious, lacking complete evidence) and related world view the way you wish. Modern, OT, and NT prophets all taught truth in their own way. No prophet intentionally lied. They did their best to teach.
God said that there were no gods before him and there will be no gods after Him. Mormonism teaches that God was created by another god and that adherents of Mormonism can become gods. Mormonism teaches that Jesus was the brother of Satan. The Mormon “Jesus” is not the Jesus of Christianity. Jesus was crucified, dead, buried and arose from the tomb to provide an eternal sacrifice for the sins of mankind. We are saved by faith and not by works, according to God’s word. You cannot do good works to earn salvation (grace, “after you’ve done all that you can do” is not based on The Word for genuine followers of Jesus Christ. I will pray for you all. When you have a crisis in your faith, please do not turn to Atheism, as many ex-Mormons do but rather, turn your eyes upon the real Christ and receive His love and grace. He is the way, the truth and the light. God bless you all.
50:06 - Bingo! There is NO secular argument against the Book of Mormon that isn't as wild as an angel and gold plates. If you have to go into the realm of "uh...uh...he was on shrooms, and in a hypnotic trance...and...uh" - Then you're basically saying you have no legitimate argument.
You misunderstood. They were talking about the phenomenon that there are some people who think that way, but they still are faithful members. They weren't referring to themselves
Jim Bennett obviously knows what he is talking about . Jeremy obviously can't take what he dishes out . I have been a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints for 45 years . From day one I started getting the anti Mormon trash . Except in a debate I have never heard a member of Christ True Church ever say anything belittling any other church . Jim Bennett I will listen to . As for this channel no thanks .
Jim makes me mad. Always apologizing unjustifiably to people who hate the LDS church and its members. But, I know plenty of people in the church who were snarky and sarcastic to the arguments, Jim’s response to the CES letter didn’t create them, such hubris on Jim’s part sometimes annoys me! MM are just voicing what many of us Gen X and early millennial still faithful members feel. If the dissidents of Mormonism can poke the bear and dish it out, then they better be able to take it AS it was dished out. Jim is interesting. I didn’t see the 2015 tglbqaii-+= revelation or policy as exclusionary. He gets to be angry, almost leave because of it, but lambastes those of us who feel the promotion and condoning of moral deviancy from the heads of the church is also a reason to leave for many of us. I too felt inspired to stay though, that this is where I’m needed and where I was put, and that so in order to fight hard to resist and repel moral degenerate ideologies from being accepted, and promoted, within the church. Weird how that that all works out.
Jim says Jeremy doesn’t check his sources, but doesn’t provide any persuasive examples of this that invalidates the evidence that the CES Letter provides. Jim denying that his response doesn’t have ad hominem attacks against Jeremy is dishonest. You’re criticizing Jeremy, not the arguments he makes. That’s the problem, Jim, and why your response isn’t stopping people from leaving because of the evidence they are finding through the CES Letter. Your response is inadequate to combat the evidence in the CES Letter. Poor work on this one Jim.
I think Jim might get into Jeremy and his sources later on! I did bring that up because there were certain parts which seemed attacking towards Jeremy, but I think Jim is genuine when he said it wasn't intended towards him personally, but rather his arguments
@@mormonismwiththemurph the problem with all of the responses I’ve seen to the CES Letter, including Jim’s, is that they attack Jeremy or his motivations for writing the letter without dealing with the merits of the arguments he makes. Claiming that you’re calling Jeremy’s arguments stupid without addressing them on their merits is not helpful to members who are struggling and looking for help. If the arguments were stupid, they wouldn’t be causing people to lose their faith in the first place. Dismissing his arguments as stupid or calling them unoriginal isn’t helping, it’s exacerbating the problem for many of us.
@@rydiddy6233, I really don’t understand this criticism at all. I spent hours with Stephen here discussing specific responses to Jeremy’s arguments, after spending dozens of hours discussing them with RFM, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, the Midnight Mormons, as well as writing 150,000 words in direct response, line by line, to every word in the CES Letter. When you dismiss all of that as nothing but me insulting Jeremy and not addressing any arguments, I’m left to wonder if you’ve actually paid any attention whatsoever to anything I’ve said or written, as well as to wonder how I could have filled so much time and writing with nothing but insults even if I had wanted to. It makes it very hard to take your criticism seriously, as it doesn’t seem to be offered in good faith on your part.
@@jimbennett6431 Jim, I’ve seen many hours of your interviews and read your response to the CES Letter. Even the host here, who says he is a believing member, says that your tone in your response to the CES Letter is critical of Jeremy Runnels as an individual and I agree with that. There is not a lot of substance in response to the CES Letter’s arguments that persuasively resolves the issues. For example, with issues such as anachronisms in the BoM, the patently false translation of the BoA, and polyandry/polygamy. Even in this interview when you mention the issue of King James Version errors in the BoM, you don’t resolve the argument of how these unique King James Version errors were in a purportedly ancient record from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
Jim Bennet is awesome and is a minor hero in my opinion. To be a major hero you got to save a life…lol. He was so impressive how he discussed the with Reels and Dehlin with regards to Jeremy’s CES letter. This was a nice interview here on this video to get some further background. I may not agree with Jim on his MO with respect to our relation with the anti or ex-Mormon community and in defending the doctrine as separate from leaders mistakes (specifics can’t be provided in this post because of length). But, he is very intelligent and learned on the church history. BTW, his dad was incredibly kind to my wife and I on several occasions when we were asking questions of certain geo-political events that were occurring. In conclusion it is odd that these folks like Runnels, Dehlin and Reels are always attacking the moral standing of the church’s leaders but Jim will give them the charity they don’t give.
I am not convinced the mention of "skins" is ever anything but metaphor- there are many sermons, Jacob, etc where skin/garments/clothing is discussed in terms of color and staining, and the early Lamanite people are described as a skin(as in, animal hides)-wearing people. Their skins (metaphorically, their souls) are cursed with blackness because of their cruelty early on.
The more time i spend studying the Book or Mormon, the more i realize it is a solemn condemnation and warning against racism, violence, classism and materialism.
totally agree!
This is great stuff Stephen! Jim is incredible and was an important part of my reconstruction after my faith crisis. This kind of content is so important.
Thanks Bridger! I'm looking forward to our future interview on the CES letter as well.
Wow, The Murph interviews are bangers! Your channel is valuable and important. So balanced and level headed.
Glad you like them! Thanks for joining!
As a person that lost his faith and the CES letter was part of it I am looking forward to watching these episodes and get Jim's thoughts. I have watched Jim on Mormon Stories Podcast and have a great respect for his views and appreciate him tackling the hard stuff. I will give my opinions after I have watched them.
That's a good perspective to have, I admire your openness to hear Jim's take and I think it's good your respect him, even if we don't agree or come to different conclusions!
This was one of my crisis of faith issues. But I got on my knees and asked our father in heaven what was the truth. And wow did he answer. That same day, answers were coming in so fast I could barely contain it, much less write it all down. I've been a member for 55 years, and I'm just now researching all this stuff. My faith has returned many fold , and haven't looked back. I just got through researching the Spaulding manuscript. And it's amazing how it is not even close to being the same . And Sidney Rigdon wasn't even a member yet, and so he didn't write it for Joseph Smith. He didn't even meet Joseph till nearly a year later after the book of Mormon. Was written. And so the book Mormonism unveiled, where they quote Willard Chase( who was a Methodist minister, actually used dark arts to try and find where Joseph hid the plates, he even hired his sister Sally Chase , who used a green piece of glass ad dark arts to look for the plates. Just do a research on it, it's all out there. And it was Hurlbut that started most of these rumors, he was going to be excommunicated, but talked his way back in. And Joseph k ew he was lying. But then went out and started laughing and started bragging he fool old Joe Smith and his God. This for him excommunicated. He then said he would wash his hands in the blood of joe Smith. And he went out of his way to harm Joseph Smith and the church.
@@MrRickb75645 I spent 15+ years studying church History. You assessment of Sidney Rigdon sadly is wrong. There are several eyewitness reports of Rigdon meeting smith before 1830 and proving they did NOT meet before 1830 is very difficult. There is a new book out by Lar's Nielsen that is even more eye opening in regards to the Spaulding - Rigdon connection and Dartmouth College and the works of Athanasius Kircher. The fact BYU bought all of the Kircher documents from Dartmouth college in 1979 and 1980 and then vaulted them for no one to see, even now you can't see them is very very dubious. Also there is a great amount of Spaulding and Rigdon writeprint found in the Book of Mormon. Like 50% Spaulding and 40% Ridgon writeprint..
I enjoy Jim Bennett's approach, and I like him a lot. I left the church before I read the CES letter. I am strangely chuffed that Jim prays in the same way I do, and now I can't get Fiddler on the Roof out of my head! Thanks for bringing Jim to us.
Haha thanks for watching!
I’m not LDS but studied it in the early 1970’s. I always wondered why some significant validation of Smith and the BOM has never been discovered. Like discovering the Reformed Egyptian language or concrete evidence of a Nephite civilization. As a skeptic I just thought the whole story was too improbable without a significant validation discovery. My 2 cents.
I think evidence for Reformed Egyptian and for the Nephites civilization actually has been discovered. But there are too many varying instances of both that no Mormon wants to claim any of them just yet.
Actually there has been a lot of stuff coming up the Heart Land area of the US. Watch some of the videos from Wayne May, Rod Meldrum and Michael P. There are others but those are the ones I like. Now even the non Mormons are finding things but they don't know about the LDS church history so they can't put it to anything.
I am not LDS, but you must understand that truth is ultimately about faith. Validation of doctrine can only ever truly occur in the life of the adherent through experience - does the doctrine make them more like Christ? As a Protestant Christian, I am aware that much of the historisticity of the Bible can certainly be questioned, particularly many of the larger themes of the Old Testament. But by living out the premises of the Bible we can find God, find salvation, find our Redeemer. We can be fundamentally changed by God through the words and practices advocated within the pages of the Bible. I can attest to this in my own life. My point? I have met many LDS who can attest to the same. LDS scriptures can make people more Christlike - so most other arguments again LDS 'truthfulness' are ultimately useless. The big questions must always be, is God glorified and will I be more like Christ? That's all that matters.
@@rutherglenroad8109 I am LDS and I know that I am trying to be like Jesus. I am not perfect but no mortal can be perfect but we can all do good unto our fellow man and that is where my heart is.
There is a great deal of validation that has accumulated over the years. However, people tend to forget these once they become common or accepted knowledge. For instance, the existence of ancient plates as a method of documenting important histories was essentially unknown in Joseph Smith's time, certainly for Jewish records. He predicted it, and it is now supported by archaeological evidence. Similarly, people in Joseph Smith's time thought of the native Americans civilizations as quite simple, and not advanced or populous. And now we know these ancient Americans were quite advanced and quite populous, as they are described in the Book of Mormon. Examples of predictions made in the Book of Mormon that are now accepted in American archaeology include large cities, roads, complex language, trade, architecture, temples, and so forth. Check out the relatively current LIDAR research being done to map ancient cities in the Americas. Not to mention the bullseyes related to the city of Nahom and the Bountiful region on the Arabian peninsula.
There is a great deal of evidence that the Book of Mormon is a Hebrew document, including complex ancient poetry, linguistic constructions that would be common in the ancient Hebrew of the time, but are very strange in English, etc. There is the discovery of multiple literary "voices" in the text, evidence of ancient American cultural influences in Book of Mormon context, and on and on.
There are plenty of evidences that don't get much of the limelight because they don't support the majority/opposition, who are quite vocal, and they continue accumulating. To be informed on this, one has to search out the research being done, and not assume that if they exist they would be headline news.
Time 1:51. Right you are, Jim. I heard a Baptist preacher say he met the same Jesus in the pages of the Book of Mormon that he met in the words of the Bible. 😊
I have honestly never met anyone who left the Church over a different word . A misplaced “the “ or an “and “ is NOT why people leave the Church . . I am moving on to part 2 hoping for more meat . If someone is leaving The Gospel over a word they have very little testimony . Jim is so knowledgeable . Great discussion on a timely topic . Too many members led astray by poorly researched internet “information “ .
Jim is able to make critical statements of others and others' interpretation of issues related to the church because of his refusal to "debate". By setting the parameters which require his views to be given equal weight, without serious pushback, he avoids having to defend his views against strong pushback, despite many of his views being contradictory to themselves, and to the positions and statements by the church and its apologists. I have seen this in a reddit discussion with him, in which I pushed back pretty strongly (but politely) on some of his views about prophets. In response to apparent contradictions and dodges, he suddenly complained that the discussion was becoming hostile and ended it. It's easy to justify your statements and positions when you run away from anything approaching true "debate". When you set parameters for the discussion that forbid your statements to be strongly challenged, you can continue to share them with confidence. I respect him for having discussions with people like Bill Reel and Jeremy Runnells, but let's not pretend he's stepping into the lion's den when he insists on limits to how he can be challenged. But he's perfectly willing to go on interviews and podcasts and make critical statements about people when they're not there to ensure his criticism is fair and/or accurate. He's certainly expanding the limits of his bubble of an echo chamber, but he hasn't left it completely.
1:01:57 this is a great point Jim. Our language is limiting. Think of it this way, sometimes you can get an emotion across much more clearly through music than through text.
Great video! Thanks!!!
Great conversation. I once wondered why the Church (on Sundays, in seminary and institute, etc.) focuses almost exclusively on doctrine and invitations to receive one's own testimony through personal revelation - and didn't spend more time on apologetics, philosophy, or reason-based arguments for Christianity and "Mormonism".
After my own journey through the CES Letter and other such material, I've arrived at a space where it seems to me that the final destination is still the same, i.e. both paths end in the need for testimony through reveleation.
That said, I'm grateful for all those who put in the effort to provide apologetic material to combat the issues, both legitimate and illegitimate, that confront believers.
Yeah I agree church focuses more on the scriptures and doctrine rather than apologetics and controversial history! Yes certainly a revelation or testimony is essential to maintain faith
At a low point in my faith, I decided that I had to at least treat the Book of Mormon as a Divinely-revealed, Divinely-created myth - distinct from "inspired fiction." In other words, if it were a product of some process similar to (but *not* identical with) automatic writing, judging by my experiences and reflections on mythopoeia and mysticism, and admitting in "plain humility" and "real intent" that the book is powerful (and holding on to the factual attestation of Bountiful too), I had to re-engage with it with a renewed commitment: I had to at least take it seriously within its own frame, and I made the decision anew to receive it as what it claims to be. It has continued to reward me ever more richly.
I can accept Orson's and Jim's idea about the Mulochites. I don't require every particular of the authors' belief regarding deep antiquity (such as the Flood) to be factual at face value. They believed what they believed, and God met them there. One of the main messages of the Book of Mormon in my experience is that revelation is pragmatic rather than absolute.
Wonderful episode! Jim's response to the CES Letter has been of great benefit to me.
Thanks for watching, glad it has helped you!
I also grew up in Calabasas and recall Jim performing the lead role in the high school production of The Music Man (he did a superb job) and his father singing in the ward choir. Fun memories. Enjoying this conversation!
That's so cool!
It is cool, indeed! Are you Brent Arnell’s son?
@@jimbennett6431 , I am!
I admire Jim for engaging the issues because open dialogue is necessary between believers and critics. Let us all be scholars like Dan Vogel or Brent Metcalfe and courteous/kind/compassionate like John Hamer or Jim Bennett.
Another fantastic video! Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Thank you Jim, and Murph! Great interview!
Love your channel!
(Murph, you mentioned a great interview with a Chris… could you tell me the name of the interview please? I was trying to find it on your channel… but not sure which one it is.) I love all your posts! 🔥
Hmm, I've no idea. I don't think I've interviewed a Chris? When did I say that? Maybe you misheard
@@mormonismwiththemurph I watched your interview with Leo and his story of coming back… you mentioned an interview you did with his friend Chris and a miracle that brought him back to the faith… but maybe I did misunderstand. I’ll go back to the comment you replied to. I’d love to hear that story if it’s not a misunderstanding. 😂
(I love love love your refusing to get angry and hateful in responding to those who attack and slander the church. You use Christ like responses and it is so inspiring!☀️)
I love the explanation of how a personal revelation works at around 1:09:00. It just "happens". It reminds me a little bit of Dr. McCoy's reaction to gaining more knowledge through "The Teacher" in the Spock's Brain episode. He just smiles upon learning how to do an impossible surgery and says "yes, it's so simple. A child could understand.". I think we for some reason overcomplicate what revelation really is, and at the same time minimize its reality.
See this is why I don't understand why not just answer the question.. He's not attacking he's trying to make sense from the Book of Mormon. Like millions of fellow Mormons. If they leave then they just leave. But give them that right to make that personal decision alone. By looking for ways to explain the wrong things to keep members is more wrong. But don't make people feel like they're stupid for having common sense. Joseph Smith was just a man that God chose but everything he did and said didn't always come from God. They're many things I don't believe but my choice is to stay despite my race was discriminated against and no one can make me believe that was from God, does that make me stupid, no I had free agency. He got a lot right but wrong as well. Stop covering up the things an anointed man chose to do something wrong that discount the Book of Mormon. People not walking away for him being a man, people are walking away now because the higher ups is choosing to explain away his wrong doing and all the Presidents that followed him as well. I'm black and how Brigham Young was President is beyond my belief Not answering his questions is the reason the book CES Letter came about at all.
I don't blame you at all for not liking Brigham Young and I really look up to you for staying true to your beliefs.
Brigham young was one of the first converts. He taught some false doctrine that was his own opinions. It never became official doctrine or revelation since many of the 12 disagreed with him. Things like blood atonement, adam god hypothesis, curse of cain etcetera. and those teachings were a product of his own thinking not divine revelation. Its also obvious that the preisthood ban was his own opinion and reaction to certain events. One thing is he wanted to convert white southerners who wouldnt join if blacks could have the preisthood. Was that the right choice? I dont think so. But it was a choice he made. And it stuck longer than it needed to because even though the majority of church leaders wanted to change the policy, there was always one who disagreed and it has to be unanimous. Its sad to see that despite God wanting to reveal his truth, sometimes it's a longer wait than it should be for people to come around to it.
1:27:30 and 1:32:18 For informational purposes…
Mulek was a son of the Old Testament king Zedekiah (about 589 B.C.). The Bible records that all the sons of Zedekiah were slain (2 Kgs. 25:7), but the Book of Mormon clarifies that Mulek survived (Hel. 8:21).
Zarahemla was a descendant of Mulek, Mosiah 25:2.
The people of Mulek joined the Nephites, Mosiah 25:13.
The Lord brought Mulek into the land north, Hel. 6:10.
All of Zedekiah’s sons were slain except Mulek, Hel. 8:21.
Mulek, according to the Book of Mormon, was the only surviving son of Zedekiah, the last King of Judah, after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon states that after escaping from Judah, Mulek traveled to the Americas and established a civilization there.
Thank you!
I love Jim Bennett, very honest and acknowledges faults
Yeah I think he's got a good heart and is intellectually honest
@1:04:09 "Stiffneckedness, which isn't a word. Joseph Smith sort of made it up."
I don't know if Jim is trying to say that the specific variant of "Stiffneckedness" isn't a word and that Joseph Smith made that up, or that "Stiffnecked" also isn't a word. Because "Stiffnecked" is definitely used in the King James Bible. That seems like a silly thing to say "stubborn" is a word, but "stubbornness" is just a made up word. I agree with Jim that Joseph Smith was more than a passive participant in the translation process, but this seems like a weird and unclear point to back up that idea.
1:15:00 Y'all need to go watch videos by Marvin Perkins and good rebuttal against racism in the Book of Mormon
I'm intrigued, where are they at!
@@mormonismwiththemurph
ruclips.net/video/LfzFS2mIcNk/видео.html
@@mormonismwiththemurph On you tube, just search Marvin Perkins.
My brother read the God makers. He wouldnt return to church afterwards. I told him a stroy my mother related to me. She was at the tempme one day, and met a brother of the church who was an ex-missionary, who was walking to an appointment, when the holy ghost told him to go into this evangelical meeting they were walking by. He started to just go on , when he recieved the same message. So he explained everything to his companion. And they went in. And once in , theu were shocked to see the author of the god makers, was sitting there as one of this churches guest. And thwy were talking about the book. That is when the holy ghost tomd this missionary to confront this man. And so he did. He asked him weretn you an ex mormon? And the man was shocked. But he could not lie,.for the holy Ghost made him tell the truth. So he answered yes. Werent you excommunicated for adultry? And the man again answered yes. And then you came back and were reinstated, but then again you committed adultery. And were excommunicated for the last time , and you are lying in this book because your angry at the church? He answered yes again..the preacher then asked the man to leave. And he did. That is when the missionaries left after that.
Jim, your explanation for the SAME EXACT errors in the King James Version of the Bible being in the Book of Mormon that is supposed to be translated from an ancient record predating the King James Bible by centuries is missing the point entirely. It’s almost as if you don’t understand the argument he’s making because you’re not addressing the CES Letter’s argument.
Wait - I thought all I did was insult Jeremy Runnells the entire time. How did an actual argument get in there amid all my endless ad hominem?
If you’re going to criticize me for never making an argument, it’s probably best not to cite my arguments, especially when you misrepresent them. It makes it very hard to take you seriously.
Are we defining "same exact errors" as "I prefer this other Bible version, therefore THAT version is in error"?
I know people have said "Joseph had Bible X which had this error" yet no one has shown Joseph ever having, much less using, THAT particular Bible.
So, can we not with the superficial suppositions? Make the full case or be quiet, yes?
I think it is worth noting there is a difference between "error" and "variation". Translators often have multiple ways to render words and phrases into other languages. While Runnel claims it is highly unlikely that that two independent translators would choose the same variations, he didn't actually study how common that practice is. Especially when a common culture touchstone exists.
Victor Hugo liked to include quotes from Greek philosophers in his stories. Translators specializing in English/French translations, would not necessarily translate the French translations into English. More often they would find a recognized preexisting English translation and use that instead. This is a common practice dating back for 100s of years in the real world. Finding simular practices in the Book of Mormon does not mean much.
You can read Bennet's full ces letter debunk online and read the argument further there.
@@jaredite8388 I’ve read it, it’s weak
@46:04 Me: "Jim, who taught 'people like Jeremy Runnells' how to think in black and white? The church is either 100% true or it is a fraud? Uh, the LDS Mormon leaders - the top 15 guys - have taught that! Gordon B. Hinckley was a clear example. C'mon. Seriously?"
I agree I was brought up with black and white thinking such as Prophet will always teach the truth and never teach false doctrine and everything in scripture is 100% the word of God. So I empathise that we were brought up being taught to have this worldview
There is always this tension set up between shoring up vs. exploration. I was raised non-lds and found the emphasis on orthodoxy, unsatisfying; I was drawn to heresy. After joining the Church I was put off that so many of the doctrines (which I found false) from orthodox christianity had infiltrated the Church and were being taught as official doctrine; is good to see this is changing. E.g., the general handbook of instructions was a massive, loose leaf, secret, book providing detailed instructions on too many topics; it has been superseded by a public, manual with mostly procedural instructions.
Very good conversation. I always enjoy listening to Jim Bennett interviews. I really would have liked to see him win mayor of Sandy.
Jim, how do you personally approach verses like Ephesians 6:4 (a forged letter of Paul), Isaiah 28:10 (a major KJV mistranslation), and verses from the long ending of Mark (believers handling snakes and drinking poison) making their way into the Book of Mormon? I can understand Joseph deciding to add a little "artistic license" to some of his verses to make them resonate better with a 19th Century audience, but why would he have included phrases that erroneously made their way into the KJV Bible?
Thanks and those are good questions. I've not heard of the Ephesians 6 criticism!
Jeremy is making a lot of money off of this CES letter. So he has another motive for defending that.
No evidence of that. You sound conspiratorial
Jack Welch I believe said that there would be no more slam dunks .
Good chat still need to work on sound volume.
Too low?
@@mormonismwiththemurph It's a little on the low side.
Jim, I am glad that you are able to see the value behind the CES Letter as well as other critics points. It's nice to know that Jeremy Runnells is always willing to make corrections.
Yeah I think it's important to address and validate some of the issues critics point too and try to have good and respectful dialogue
@@mormonismwiththemurph Yes I think open dialog is important to getting to the truth. I mean sure it is nice to believe that the beginning of the Church was so faith promoting, but I think it is better to see the dirty beginning of Joseph Smiths Nocisist behavior, with criminal leaders that used religion to hid their counterfeiting operation, secret murders, plundering, theft, manipulation, fraud, arson, adultery, and all the dirty. It really helps us to see how God can even work through wicked people to eventually create one of the greatest religious societies on earth. It's great to see that we don’t accept everything Joseph Smith said, which opens the door to develop the society into something even better.
They seem more like backtracking than corrections to me. My teenagers do similar things when they know they're telling a lie but aren't ready to be honest yet.
@@DannyAGray Well maybe it is backtracking, but that's probably what is needed to get people comfortable with the truth. Police officers will do this in interrogation rooms going over the story again and again while at the same time making the truth seam like normal behavior or even hiding the truth seaming like normal behavior.
I respect this conversation and dialogue but i find it odd Jim seems so confident in some of what I believe to be the weakest arguments.
1. If the Book of Mormon scripture itself isn’t the revelation then what is the revelation? Also love how this has changed from a translation to a revelation. Why did he even need the plates then?
2. If you argue that the racist curse of black skin is a result of a Joseph smith or Nephi being racist, how could you not regard the Book of Mormon to at least be partially racist?
3. People don’t, in Jim’s word, “scream” at the change in the introduction because scripture is getting changed. That’s not the point, and Jim knows that. Everyone knows it isn’t scripture (although it could be contended that if the Book of Mormon was essentially just a revelation, that the introduction was also a revelation, or at least inspired from God. So did God change his mind about the American Indian ancestry? And if not who did? Was the change a result of revelation? If so, why was it not done before DNA pointed out the fact the American Indians in fact came from East Asia and not from people who would’ve come from Jerusalem.) The Church has realized (probably based on DNA evidence) that the Lamanites are not the principal ancestors of the American Indians. This implies that they might made up a small part of some small group of American Indians, but is drastically different from what early church leaders believed where they thought all native Americans were ancestors from the Lamanites. This is still a huge belief among most Mormons today. This change affects the mainstream understanding of the Book of Mormon history and Jim is trying so hard to shove it under the rug. If the introduction said “principal” based on the current understanding of the time, and a change was brought about based on new scientific discoveries and a greater understanding, to me, a prophet is no longer a prophet seer and revelator. They are just a man trying to make their best judgments. Lastly, if it was the other way around and it was determined through DNA evidence that native Americans DNA had Jewish or middle eastern lineage, apologists would argue this as evidence of the Book of Mormon and would laugh at any critic who made similar arguments saying the dna isn’t conclusive.
4. If scriptures and profits are fallible, and can get things wrong (and in the past have) how should they still be regarded as not only highly valuable but divine and from God? At this point they seem useless.
Looking forward to this conversation 🙏
Thanks for joining!
Haha love the ending 😆
Haha very abrupt, but part 2 is out tomorrow
DNA is nothing to be concerned about, I have studied genetics and eugenics as I'm a disability advocate with many disabilities primarily genetic.
Critics have made an extremely oversimplification, genetics are not that simple. When humans move from one environment to another (Israel to N. America) our genetics adapt to environmental changes such as foreign germs that were not in the previous environment so we can survive.
Generation after generation a process called mutagenesis occurs producing mutations. Most mutations die while some persist, the ones which persist enhance the adaptability of a population, and accelerates the pace of evolution. New metabolic pathways can build on top of mutations producing new mutations. For example, Down Syndrome did not exist among the human population until the 17th century AD, some N. Africans have Down Syndrome and it did not exist among our ancient ancestors, that's one example.
Then it gets even more complicated through epigenetics, what happens on top of human genes causing diseases and cancers with some cancers inheritable producing new genes.
DNA, RNA, Double Helix, nucleotides, mutations, proteins, alleles, chromosomes, epigenetics, environmental changes, evolution and more all contribute to genetic evolution.
Clearly, critics are oversimplifying DNA and genomic research.
If only Mormonism had a few problems instead of hundreds. Jim is church broke and utilizes "confirmation bias" to justify his continued membership. But, shouldn't a so-called Apostle be answering these questions instead? What is their major malfunction?
I would love to bring an apostle on, we should reach out to one together Richard ;)
Richard, What faith or world view has less problems than the LDS Faith? Your uncharitable take is unfortunate. Apostles don't do this. Not their role. Please rectify your expectations and you'll be disappointed less frequently.
@@nealljones The expectations of "God's one and only TRUE church" is set by the institution. "Prophets teach TRUTH" to quote Nelson.
@@scottvance74 It's founding prophet, Brother Joseph, restored the priesthood and Gospel fullness. You don't have to believe that. You have the freedom to align your faith (and everyone has faith in a system of beliefs with some religious, lacking complete evidence) and related world view the way you wish.
Modern, OT, and NT prophets all taught truth in their own way. No prophet intentionally lied. They did their best to teach.
@@nealljonesjust because another religion or religions also have fundamental flaws doesn’t make Mormonism less of a fraud.
God said that there were no gods before him and there will be no gods after Him. Mormonism teaches that God was created by another god and that adherents of Mormonism can become gods. Mormonism teaches that Jesus was the brother of Satan. The Mormon “Jesus” is not the Jesus of Christianity. Jesus was crucified, dead, buried and arose from the tomb to provide an eternal sacrifice for the sins of mankind. We are saved by faith and not by works, according to God’s word. You cannot do good works to earn salvation (grace, “after you’ve done all that you can do” is not based on The Word for genuine followers of Jesus Christ. I will pray for you all. When you have a crisis in your faith, please do not turn to Atheism, as many ex-Mormons do but rather, turn your eyes upon the real Christ and receive His love and grace. He is the way, the truth and the light. God bless you all.
50:06 - Bingo! There is NO secular argument against the Book of Mormon that isn't as wild as an angel and gold plates.
If you have to go into the realm of "uh...uh...he was on shrooms, and in a hypnotic trance...and...uh" - Then you're basically saying you have no legitimate argument.
Fascinating that you dont beleive in a literal Nephi or literal gold plates? that doesnt add up for me
Who? Me or Jim?
You misunderstood. They were talking about the phenomenon that there are some people who think that way, but they still are faithful members. They weren't referring to themselves
Jim Bennett obviously knows what he is talking about . Jeremy obviously can't take what he dishes out . I have been a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints for 45 years . From day one I started getting the anti Mormon trash . Except in a debate I have never heard a member of Christ True Church ever say anything belittling any other church . Jim Bennett I will listen to . As for this channel no thanks .
What’s wrong with the channel?
While Jim can sometimes get carried away, this was not a fair evaluation of his points. It was quite deceptive and the usual mistruths.
What do you mean? What was deceptive?
@@mormonismwiththemurph you.
@@WatchingwaitingG2Dwhat is deceptive???
Jim makes me mad. Always apologizing unjustifiably to people who hate the LDS church and its members. But, I know plenty of people in the church who were snarky and sarcastic to the arguments, Jim’s response to the CES letter didn’t create them, such hubris on Jim’s part sometimes annoys me! MM are just voicing what many of us Gen X and early millennial still faithful members feel. If the dissidents of Mormonism can poke the bear and dish it out, then they better be able to take it AS it was dished out.
Jim is interesting. I didn’t see the 2015 tglbqaii-+= revelation or policy as exclusionary. He gets to be angry, almost leave because of it, but lambastes those of us who feel the promotion and condoning of moral deviancy from the heads of the church is also a reason to leave for many of us. I too felt inspired to stay though, that this is where I’m needed and where I was put, and that so in order to fight hard to resist and repel moral degenerate ideologies from being accepted, and promoted, within the church. Weird how that that all works out.
Jim says Jeremy doesn’t check his sources, but doesn’t provide any persuasive examples of this that invalidates the evidence that the CES Letter provides.
Jim denying that his response doesn’t have ad hominem attacks against Jeremy is dishonest. You’re criticizing Jeremy, not the arguments he makes. That’s the problem, Jim, and why your response isn’t stopping people from leaving because of the evidence they are finding through the CES Letter. Your response is inadequate to combat the evidence in the CES Letter.
Poor work on this one Jim.
I think Jim might get into Jeremy and his sources later on! I did bring that up because there were certain parts which seemed attacking towards Jeremy, but I think Jim is genuine when he said it wasn't intended towards him personally, but rather his arguments
Alas.
@@mormonismwiththemurph the problem with all of the responses I’ve seen to the CES Letter, including Jim’s, is that they attack Jeremy or his motivations for writing the letter without dealing with the merits of the arguments he makes.
Claiming that you’re calling Jeremy’s arguments stupid without addressing them on their merits is not helpful to members who are struggling and looking for help. If the arguments were stupid, they wouldn’t be causing people to lose their faith in the first place. Dismissing his arguments as stupid or calling them unoriginal isn’t helping, it’s exacerbating the problem for many of us.
@@rydiddy6233, I really don’t understand this criticism at all. I spent hours with Stephen here discussing specific responses to Jeremy’s arguments, after spending dozens of hours discussing them with RFM, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, the Midnight Mormons, as well as writing 150,000 words in direct response, line by line, to every word in the CES Letter.
When you dismiss all of that as nothing but me insulting Jeremy and not addressing any arguments, I’m left to wonder if you’ve actually paid any attention whatsoever to anything I’ve said or written, as well as to wonder how I could have filled so much time and writing with nothing but insults even if I had wanted to. It makes it very hard to take your criticism seriously, as it doesn’t seem to be offered in good faith on your part.
@@jimbennett6431 Jim, I’ve seen many hours of your interviews and read your response to the CES Letter. Even the host here, who says he is a believing member, says that your tone in your response to the CES Letter is critical of Jeremy Runnels as an individual and I agree with that. There is not a lot of substance in response to the CES Letter’s arguments that persuasively resolves the issues. For example, with issues such as anachronisms in the BoM, the patently false translation of the BoA, and polyandry/polygamy. Even in this interview when you mention the issue of King James Version errors in the BoM, you don’t resolve the argument of how these unique King James Version errors were in a purportedly ancient record from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
Lol! It never ceases to amaze me how mormons just gaslight the hell out of you...
It never ceases to amaze me how little charity anti-Mormons are willing to extend to Mormons, even in the face of thoughtful believers like Jim.
@@jeremyjensen7144 Yeah, never in my life have I seen someone refuse to pay someone charity for being mormon... It doesn't happen
@@areafifty I hope this is sarcasm. If so, I give you a 6 out of 10.
@@jeremyjensen7144 fortunately for me, I live in reality and not mormonland where you can just invent facts in the absence of evidence
@@jeremyjensen7144 and you're literally sitting here proving my point with your gaslighting 😆😂 yall are unbelievable
too long, didn't watch, bunk sounding channel, no sub
Lol ok