How have Book of Mormon origin theories changed over time? Ep. 116

[@jarod.anderson]

I love everything on Saints Unscripted, but Faith and Beliefs is my favorite. Please don't ever stop doing these David. I love these so much.

[@tatiginattosantana]

I’m 100% with you!! This is the core of this channel!! Please keep it up guys ❤️

[@BookofTiffaneeStories]

The usage of Olan Rogers's quote made this whole video so much better.

[@LindyLime]

If anyone wants an interesting rabbit-hole to go down: there are so many similarities between Joseph Smith and Joan of Arc. Lots of differences too of course, but hear me out. Both received their first divine visitation in their early teens, both had their mission expounded to them over the years, both of them were from humble circumstances making them completely inadequate to their task (peasant girl/farmer boy), both of them were unjustly jailed and martyred, and in the end neither denied their testimonies. AND (this is how my comment relates to this video) people are constantly falling all over themselves to explain how they each did the impossible WITHOUT divine help. Joan's critics like to claim she was a schizophrenic, a mystic, or a charlatan, but can't explain how that would suddenly give an illiterate peasant girl the military prowess to break a months-long siege. There's even a theory (that sounds like it's straight out of a movie) where she's supposedly the bastard daughter of a nobleman raised by peasants because ¿?¿reasons????? And again this magically gave her military know-how??? And all this in spite of her being possibly the most well documented person of the Middle Ages, showing consistent accounts of her life and character. And all these conspiracy theories are treated as easier to believe than divine intervention. And for one more connection between Joan and Joseph, this one much more tangible (non-LDS people will think I'm absolutely insane for this) critics of Joan's claim to divine help always ask this question: Why on earth would God go to such an extreme to save France from the English when nations have always conquered each other throughout history? And here's my very LDS influenced thought. We're taught the founding of the U.S. was essential for the Restoration. The French helped America win the the Revolutionary War. But if the English had conquered France in the 1400s this probably couldn't have happened. And France was saved because the Lord sent Joan to do it. Anyways, BYU-TV has a really good documentary on Joan of Arc (they don't mention Joseph Smith...these are all my own thoughts). Thanks.

[@nathanm1820]

This is a really good comparison!! Thank you for sharing!!

[@tannerbohman4231]

Well done, and excellent choice of Emperor's New Groove clips. 1:45

[@josephsaltal2596]

Didn't Emma Smith say that he didn't have the education to have written it himself?

[@sampathrathnayaka3905]

Didn't Emma Smith say that he didn't practice polygamy?

[@tatiginattosantana]

@@sampathrathnayaka3905 nope!

[@sampathrathnayaka3905]

@@tatiginattosantana even though Joseph Smith was a polygamist Emma denied his practice of polygamy.

[@tatiginattosantana]

@@sampathrathnayaka3905 you’re right, I just read about it. I can’t imagine how hard it was for her and the pressure of their time.

[@sampathrathnayaka3905]

@@tatiginattosantana Smith brought so many women to his house as his plural wives.Emma smith didn't get along with them.once she poisoned Smith and one of smith's plural wife.

[@missjoy3846]

David, you are awesome!

[@JoshSteimle]

Love the bathrobe. Can we get that in more episodes? I could see Moroni rocking that.

[@darrylkirky]

great presentation brother David snell. food for thought.. sending love and positive energy from perth Western australia. Thankyou for our facebook chats...... Darryl.

[@davidsnell2605]

Thanks mate. Hope you are well.

[@Dragonmancer1]

I've read the Book of Mormon many times over the course of decades . There is no way Joseph Smith could have written it all himself !

[@chrissessions6108]

I raise my hand to the square in support of the person responsible for inserting the silly movie clips. So unnecessary, yet strangely so necessary.

[@AGrimAwakening]

Neato!!! And, it’s a beautiful sweater.

[@gerry705]

I don’t see the problem with that book all i see some anti mormon twisted everything on that book of mormon.

[@johnlewis6526]

David = genius

[@BeeDub57]

Every argument against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon boils down to "We don't know where it came from, but we're SURE it wasn't from God!"

[@hullie7529]

@@systematicrisk There's similar problems with the Quran and Muslims don't seem to have an issue with it. In fact the coincidences don't end there because Muslims also claim that their prophet was illiterate and couldn't have written their book.

[@senkyoshi]

@@systematicrisk We still know very little about early civilizations in the Americas. We are still discovering things. We should not claim to know everything that was present or used in their time.

[@Hamann9631]

@@systematicrisk Actually we have ancient metal artifacts. Wheels decay so we shouldn't expect 1000 year old wheels.

[@neverletthemusicstop]

what's the film at 4:58 ?

[@briandavis6898]

The Muppets. The new one. Or possibly the sequel.

[@KNMFLGIRL]

Love you, Grandma! So sweet.

[@cinnamondan4984]

Nice and balanced, bro

[@coachanderson2704]

Shocking .....Captain Kid Stories, Old Joe only had 3rd grade reading level!

[@chalootr8590]

this was really interesting and honestly presented facts in a way i hadn't sene them before!! however, as a sceptic, i would be really interested in you reading and giving your thoughts on the CES letter, which is to date the most compelling document i've read

[@davidsnell2605]

I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you'd like. Shoot me a message on Facebook. If you've seen many of these Faith and Beliefs videos, you may notice that many of them address many of the issues brought up in the Letter. In my opinion, as a whole (generalizing, of course), the Letter is a good example of what is known as the Gish Gallop fallacy, though it certainly brings up topics worth discussing.

[@davidsnell2605]

@@jayakron3076 the trends outlined in this presentation are data-driven. The data can be found in the analysis provided by Brian Hales, which is linked in the description. If by "The entire CES letter is a "fallacy" because there's just too darn much information in it?" you mean "The CES Letter exhibits traits characteristic of what is commonly known as the Gish Gallop fallacy," then yes I'd agree with you. That doesn't necessarily discredit everything said in the letter (not my intention), but it does tell me a lot about the real purpose of it. Based on my KZbin notifications, it seems that you have a lot to say. I'd be happy to chat more with you via Facebook if you'd like (I'm much easier to contact there). Feel free to shoot me a message.

[@davidsnell2605]

@@jayakron3076 1) We agree on this. 2) I did not claim that factual information is discredited. In fact, I explicitly stated in my last comment that my observations about the gish gallop fallacy *do not* discredit everything said in the letter. 3) I'm simply on Facebook more often than KZbin. I check notifications there more often, and Facebook would allow us to speak privately, which I personally think is more effective than public conversations like this. Also, I'm sure Charlotte doesn't appreciate being spammed with notification from our ongoing conversation here. 4) I'm afraid that an attitude of "I'm doubtful you have anything credible to say that could affect my own beliefs" from either of us would render any personal conversation moot and unproductive from the start. Perhaps it's best to just leave things as they are now. Have a great day!

[@davidsnell2605]

@@jayakron3076 for those unfamiliar with the gish gallop, I will include what its Rational Wiki page says about it below. I do indeed, as you mentioned, believe that Letter is riddled with errors and fallacies (this is extremely well-documented, and I would be happy to provide you with examples and sources if you'd like). I believe the Letter manipulates readers with half-truths and a concerted focus on reasons not to believe, with an absence of all of the reasons _to_ believe. But as always, people are certainly free to believe as they see fit. And they can read about the gish gallop for themselves below (I've only pasted part of what the article says about this fallacy) and decide whether or not the Letter fits the bill. __________________________________ The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it. Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again). The tedium inherent in untangling a Gish Gallop typically allows for very little "creative license" or vivid rhetoric (in deliberate contrast to the exciting point-dashing central to the Galloping), which in turn risks boring the audience or readers, further loosening the refuter's grip on the crowd. This is especially true in that the Galloper need only win a single one out of all his component arguments in order to be able to cast doubt on the entire refutation attempt. For this reason, the refuter must achieve a 100% success ratio (with all the yawn-inducing elaboration that goes with such precision). Thus, Gish Galloping is frequently employed (with particularly devastating results) in timed debates. The same is true for any time- or character-limited debate medium, including Twitter and newspaper editorials. Examples of Gish Gallops are commonly found online, in crank "list" articles that claim to show "X hundred reasons for (or against) Y". At the highest levels of verbosity, with dozens upon dozens or even hundreds of minor arguments interlocking, each individual "reason" is - upon closer inspection - likely to consist of a few sentences at best. Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims - the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large - with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men - which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter. There may also be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments present in the Gallop, which are - like the Gish Gallop itself - specifically designed to be brief to pose, yet take a long time to unravel and refute. However, Gish Gallops aren't impossible to defeat - just tricky (not to say near-impossible for the unprepared). Upon closer inspection, many of the allegedly stand-alone component arguments may turn out to be nothing but thinly-veiled repetitions or simple rephrasings of the same basic points - which only makes the list taller, not more correct (hence; "proof by verbosity"). This essential flaw in the Gallop means that a skilled rebuttal of one component argument may in fact be a rebuttal to many.

[@1900intz]

The wardrobe comment was nice.

[@jeffwilson4693]

Of course, it was written hand by hand and person by person over several hundred years, like a journal from the ages. That would explain the intricacy and difference in style and voice from person to person. Smith merely translated it to English. I love that God has kept the plates hidden. Sure it'd be nice to have them verified by professionals. I think it serves a greater purpose for now in the trying of our faith and in keeping unbelief and insincerity at bay. As a fringe benefit, I enjoy the private nature of my relationship with God, which is kept preserved and pristine by the hiding of the plates. But it is his will and wisdom. If and when they are ever returned to the Church and verified by secular authorities, I imagine that it would sweep the world to the glory of our God to whom we are endeared.

[@keithkitchell1092]

Here it is again my answer wow 😲

[@JB-lr9he]

One thing that is overlooked is that if any of the denominations acknowledge the Book of Mormon they have to accept be fact that they are in fact wrong as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ testified to Joesph in the first vision.

[@TaylorYorgason]

Your grandma's got a point. You do wear the same five shirts in every episode.

[@davidsnell2605]

Hahaha as the editor of these videos, you would know.

[@seans5289]

If you believe that divine providence is the most likely explanation for the Book of Mormon, what would you say is the second-most-likely explanation for the Book of Mormon?

[@Hamann9631]

Sean S. I have had about 30 minutes to ponder your question. I think of devil is the most plausible second explanation.

[@seans5289]

@@Hamann9631: Are you saying that the Book of Mormon was most likely written by the power of God and that the Book of Mormon being counterfeit scripture from Satan is the next likeliest explanation?

[@Hamann9631]

@@seans5289 Good summary. I have felt the Holy Ghost many times telling me it is true. The combination of Joseph Smith's opportunities, abilities, and the complexity of The Book of Mormon and the archeological evidence make the natural explanation preposterous to me. The other supernatural option is the best second choise.

[@mikeonthecomputer]

I must agree with the sibling commenter. Completely naturalistic explanations for the production of the Book of Mormon appear to be unlikely, and the primary route following that, at least if you believe in the supernatural, is that it came from some other source: Satan, to be frank. We can try to work our ways around the idea, that despite all physical and eye-witness testimony, Joseph pulled a fast one and wrote this book in secret for many years before reciting it for scribes, but it is difficult to corroborate with what we know about Joseph Smith (especially as contemporary critics thought of him as "dumb" -- and even his own wife claimed he was basically illiterate). With the evidence we have about Joseph Smith's capabilities (education and age play key factors), and what some very accomplished writers say about the creative process, I do think the only thing that remains is a supernatural explanation. Whether it came from God or the Devil is key -- and Moroni 10:4 tells it plainly: ask God for the truth. I think that Satan might shy away from literally inserting "ask God" into a text designed to deceive people. It could have just self-testified its own truth in the text, but it doesn't. It directs us to ask the ultimate authority in this universe.

[@seans5289]

@@Hamann9631: If Satan were to write a counterfeit scripture, what would it look like?

[@jayt1077]

Does it really take much education to imaginatively string together popular mound builder myths of the gullible times with copied text from the King James Bible and copious use of the phrase "and so it came to pass"?

[@owpqieurty]

Haha. Not when you say it like that! However, I just read the book of mosiah for like the 30th time in my life and only now after reading it all in one go do I understand the timeline. Joseph accurately kept track of 3 groups of people and all of their geographic positions in relation to each other. And somehow he did so without ever re-reading, backtracking or having notes present when people were writing for him. If he made it up he definitely had some amazing brain power. 😅 Far more than me!

[@jayt1077]

@@owpqieurty Sure he did, to bad archeology, DNA, and history seem to have so much trouble corroborating any of this. You can read practically anything you want into a text, especially if it's authors are dead. Look at how many people thought the cold war signaled the end of days or that President Obama was the anti-christ based on their fervent Bible readings.

[@jordannewberry9561]

@@owpqieurty The show Doctor Who is a divinely inspired work of media because mere humans can't make up complex timelines.

[@paulknowles7624]

​@jayt1077 you do realize less than 10% of ancient America has been uncovered, and the parts that have are very unclear as to who the people were? You can't just proclaim that there's no evidence to support it when there's hasn't been sufficient research done for it

[@paulknowles7624]

​@@jordannewberry9561that show is also crafted by multiple people all with sets of notes that they review and drafts that they change, Smith didn't review notes and the Book of Mormon is the first draft of the translation

[@Cyrusmagi]

Well lets say he made it up out of his head which he did for he stuck his head in a hat thats part of the process amongst others But where did the ideas come from. Well his imagination. Where did all his imagination come from, probably from a great great Mind we call God! Or a tiny portion of it. Then we call this an idea and all ideas are revelation. It becomes more revelation as the revelation grows into a good thing which it has.

[@bustillo-family]

It makes no difference nowadays. There were still lot of produce craft digging out history to disprove LDS teaching especially the book of Mormon.

[@BrendonKing]

I feel like these videos are becoming, well, cyclical.

[@davidsnell2605]

Thanks for the feedback, Brendon. I'll try to provide some more variety for you in the future.

[@lydiasalmond6942]

Book of the Hebrews?

[@toddgeorge7421]

Guys just jealous...

[@thelatterdayarbiter]

Dang, am I that early?

[@Cyrusmagi]

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and president Nelson great great religious leaders but so was Billy Grayham, Cs lewis, martin Luther, John Knox, st cuthbert all leading people into and sometimes away from mainstream teachings. Have to include Mohammed as well for he was great too. Many others too. All in their own time and season. None greater than Jesus!

[@thelatterdayarbiter]

Can’t agree with you more there. It’s like what nicodemus said in the chosen in reference to the cheap mirror: “what if what we understand about God is not what we would assume, but rather it’s more beautiful and strange “ that was just paraphrasing, but you get the idea

[@Cyrusmagi]

@@thelatterdayarbiter more beautiful and strange could well be the case but perhaps words cant do justice.

[@deangriffin8997]

I now at age 60, think he stared at his " seeing stone" and was on mushrooms and or such and tripping out. Having someone writing it down.

[@paulknowles7624]

There was no known drug/shroom in Smith's time that could have created such vivid visions for Smith and the others who experienced the same thing. Not to mention the amount it would take and the fact that no one ever found any trace of any type of mind altering drug.

[@mikeonthecomputer]

Perhaps I'm biased being already convinced the book is a true account, but it seems to me that all the explanations for how Joseph forged the Book of Mormon require far greater leaps of faith than just accepting it as genuine.

[@Hamann9631]

mikeonthecomputer. Great comment! I don't have enough to faith to believe those crazy explanations.

[@mikeonthecomputer]

@@jayakron3076 Forgery relates to the circumstances that a work is created and presented. One cannot say, for example, that Herman Melville forged Moby-Dick, as the novel was always presented as a fictional account of a Captain Ahab's revenge against a whale. Nobody was told it is a true account, nor are the expected to take it as such. Joseph Smith, contrarily, presented the Book of Mormon as a true and non-fiction account of ancient peoples that lived on the American continents and their testimonies of God and Jesus Christ. It is a vital document, in equal standing to the Bible, to the faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If the Book of Mormon is actually a fiction, then it contradicts with Joseph's claims of being a true account, therefore, a forgery. In that case, it might remain a wholly original creative work, but a forgery in the sense that it is not what Joseph claimed it to be, and millions of people today believe it is.