Really excited to hear more from Kolby ever since he and his wife were bold enough to break the silence on abuse that happened in my hometown at the hands of a bishop. Thank you!
@Kolby -- I'm so glad you mentioned epistemology -- it's a profound key to arriving at a logically-coherent understanding of the difference between knowledge and belief. It usually goes beyond most people's capacity for comprehension, but is vitally useful for those who can manage it. My favorite "intro" to epistemology is as follows (I believe I shared in another post): Our human experience incorporates functions of both knowledge and belief. Complete the following sentences: I *know* something when _________________________ I *believe* something when _________________________ Do you *know* that your car will start the next time you turn the key in the ignition? Or do you *believe* that it will? Do you *know* that you will be alive ten minutes after reading this? Or do you *believe* that you will be alive? In one sense, we actually do not "know" anything. What we call knowledge is actually just a repeatedly-affirmed belief (reproducibility -- the basis for the scientific method). When I say that I "know" that if I drop a coin it will fall to the ground, what I'm actually saying is that, based on the past, every time I dropped a coin it fell to the ground, therefore I *believe* (since it hasn't happened yet) that the next time when I drop a coin it will also fall to the ground -- because I *believe* in the constancy of nature such that, given nothing has changed, the same conditions will produce the same results, OR that if the same results are not produced given the same conditions, there has been some change which can be explained. Becoming aware of explicit criteria for knowing and believing can be a starting point for consideration and a more critical evaluation of what one claims to "know" vs. what can only possibly be believed (i.e. by faith). Or, as the saying goes, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
More compassion and less tribalism. Sooooo true. I learned after living over seas for several years, that the church is run slightly different in different places and if we think we know the "right" way to do it, we might be mistaken. I like to say more Christ and less culture.
I wiah that I could hav e this man defend me or advocate for me in my separation from the denomination to which I belong. I never was a Mormon. He provides more comfort and logic than any clergyman that I have spoken with.
A profound point was brought up when Kolby hypothesized an apologist response that Joseph Smith couldn’t have written certain incriminating letters because of Emma’s statement that Joseph couldn’t write. Well if apologists believe this to be true, then aren’t they also admitting that Joseph Smith couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon?
That is usually what the statement is used for by apologists. They'll use it to--in my view--"unbalance" the equation in an effort to establish that Joseph did not have the natural ability to write/dictate the Book of Mormon. The logic then goes that if Joseph couldn't write/dictate it--a supernatural explanation is how it must have been produced. That's where I'd really turn people to the primary sources and not just accept Emma's word (made much later and in a statement that includes demonstrable untruths about Joseph's polygamy) for whether Joseph could or couldn't write a well-worded letter. Look at his 1830 letter to the Saints in Coleville and see if Emma's claim holds up.
@@reddish22 I am absolutely convinced that Joseph Smith et. al. produced the Book of Mormon by virtue of spiritual inspiriation -- it clearly is a spiritually-inspired and spiritually-empowered tome. Just not -- unfortunately -- the Spirit of God.
Didn't the word apologize, apologies, apology mean that you realize that you are wrong and are willing to do whatever it takes to correct that or those lies ? So they are admitting that they are wrong but are to dysfunctional and ashamed to correct the lie.
This pretty much just happened in the Gwyneth Paltrow case, the other side claimed to have video but it "conveniently " disappeared or was never there once they went to court. Before court he was trying to use her not wanting to go to court against him. He was found to be the guilty party and she won the $1 she sued back for
I loved this so much as a paralegal. I would like to ask, where is someone’s responsibility to research. Does the fact that the LDS church fear-mongers people into NOT researching and getting perspectives from other sources before joining or as active members put them in a different position of liability? I would think that type of intimidation or even punishable action would play into their liability of “consent”. It seems like coercion to me. I wasn’t a member long enough to have huge tithing and time loss, but had I been, I would be super pissed and want restitution of some kind.
There is a law suit in Australia where people are doing that now. Their laws differ from ours. I am not an attorney, but I wonder if there couldn’t be some sort of class action lawsuit for folks that paid tithing before the age of consent (18)?
David Whitmer's response in 1882 when asked if he had only seen the gold plates in a spiritual vision: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"
I recently had my "shelf" break vis a vis Mormonism. Anything like this that is fact based and verifiable is so so helpful and needed thank you. Also looking for new community (I live in South Salt Lake county)?
I did that I had a faith problem. I left the LDS Church. I turned to the Jehovah Witness faith. I studied with them. One day while driving I thought, "By Damn! My Mom is just as good as these women up here! Their belief was that there with be a New Heaven and A New Earth the survivors would only be Jehovah's Witnesses! All others will be burned as stumble. Mom is a good woman not a Church goer of any kind. Not just.
I've spent my life endeavoring to be a good citizen and obeying secular law. As an ex Mormon, I simply decided not to add any additional authority. It's not required or needed. I'm an adult.
You could've had a seizure or be schizophrenic or have a brain tumor even a mild stroke all these medical conditions, I'm epileptic and the voice thing is like a crowed restraint not a single voice plus that's only happened twice and I've had thousands of seizures but the rest you can hear one voice
Hi, new here. You have a great channel and I’m really loving it. I was just curious if anyone had told you that it sounds like a pen is continuously being clicked on & off? It drives me to distraction and it’s hard to focus. It could also be a computer mouse but it really sounds like a pen. Thank you
I left "the church" years ago but kept what I believe in i.e. Jesus Christ, tithing (not to "the church" but to charities like feed the children & wounded warriors ECT.) family night (held on Friday s playing board games renting videos spending time with our family) the 2 yr supply I thought was a good idea but we could only afford a 2 month supply 🤣🤣😂 wasn't so adhered to. Cussing was low & I never cared for caffeine but my children & their Dad did so I made a good cup of coffee while not drinking it 😉
Actually did you know there is another book out there written one year before the book of Mormon was written. You can prove that Joseph Smith copy from the other book. The book of Mormon because the book before was a fictional tale of Indians and all he did was change a few names and changed a few words from that book and called it the book of Mormon.
I read the book. I don’t have time to go find it, gotta get to work. But, it really wasn’t copied word for word, but a lot of the general ideas were taken. Think of one of your favorite Star Treks. We have the original with Shatner, then we had Next Generation. Next Gen has its base in the original. They are both still fiction. Lol
@@richardholmes5676 For your information: That was the biggest lie!. Because it was not translated that is this a fallacy as what the church says it is. But it's not true it is falsehood. It was never translated for one thing Joseph Smith made up the whole story of seeing what you saw in the woods..
Hi Shelise😁👋 I'd like to tell you my point of view. When I was growing up (1961-1978) I was "good little Mormon girl" my only "infraction" was known only to my sister was accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord & Savior. Between my baptism and confirmation (baptized on 6-28-69 accepted Jesus on 7-2-69 & confirmed 7_5-69) since my confirmation I learned of "2 more wives of Joseph Smith" my parents separated for some time so I didn't get to go to the temple as all the other kids (including my brother) when I had a bad experience with, not my bishop but the bishop of my fiance' at the time (hasbeen now) when my court was scheduled for after our marriage and my 17th birthday for the day after "God"(aka the IRS) told Spencer W. Kimball ( 🤔I think) was told to allow blacks into the priesthood. 2 birds one stone more members more tithe 🤣🤣😂 anyway I believe "the church has vilified Joseph Smith to make Brigham Young look not as bad as he was. I hear now Joseph Smith had over 20 wives some children some already married. When I was young polygamy didn't start until the Utah valley after the pioneers. Also I'm hearing there were black pioneers 😯 old B.Y. must be spinning in his hellish grave!!! He was the biggest bigot against blacks next to Hitler 💢 "the church has changed it's history often with every generation it has changed. Please look into this I know you could you have living family who are still members. I wish I did who would speak to me. I'm an "apostate " 🤔 whatever that is it must be bad I don't care actually 😂😂🤣 thank you for your videos and thank you for your time 😘😉
Admit it...you were just a poser in the church. You've never believed. Hope you're satisfied with the hollow accolades of the haters because that's all you've got...that, and weakness and confusion.
I agree your lawyer friend that an individual can't prove that they heared voices. Where does he get the idea that stress causes someone to hear a voice? I have heard voices on 3 different occasions and none of them were under stressful conditions. They were complete sentances. All of them were warnings to me personally.. I would add that no one can prove prophetic dreams or visions of future events either. I wouldn't be able to prove them. Anything of any real spiritual experience can't be proven either, unless some is there. And that might not be true cause my friend on weed was there when a candle on a coffee table spontaneously light up..... He said" yeah.... I lit that a half hour ago." I responded, " no you didn't. It wasn't even lit five minutes ago." I heard a sound just before that wick of that candle was lit. Most of it can't be proven. It is interesting to hear about exfoliation in the legal term.... Yes, those testimonials from church members can't be proven. They are dead spiritually to me. I won't be going back... I only have had two miracle experiences that were witnessed by other people and that might not be enough. Two questions: Are you really interested in seeing the dead? Do you believe you can? I am just going to say. I have seen 4 dead relatives in my dreams. Often they came to give me messages, warnings and talk. One visit in my dream was a HS classmate. Be open and invite them to visit you in prayer. I invited my mom to come see me before she died. I told her to come visit me in my dreams. She didn't come to me in a dream. She came to me as a spirit in the middle of the night. I awoke and watched her standing there in white. She didn't say anything. She eventually became transparent and then just disappeared. I can't say how soon it can happen. It can if you are open. I was wrong too about the church.
kolby asked me, If your interpretation, not mine, is correct--why does the letter instruct that it should be burned? If the letter is simply about sealing the Whitney family collectively, why is secrecy from Emma necessary? I'm sorry I can't find Kolby's question here. Two days before Joseph wrote this letter Emma wrote to Joseph "I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run to much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you" She was being followed and she knew it. Two weeks after this the sheriff again showed up at his home and while Emma kept them busy in the front yard Joseph went out the back and over to the Whitneys, Emma knew where he was going. The letter he asked the Whitneys to burn had the location of where he was on it. Apparently he moved once again so the Whitneys never burned it. Knewl Whitney was a close friend of Joseph and Emma's. They stayed in their home from 1832 to 1836, while their own home was being built. Yes, he loved them. But there is no indication there was anything sexual between Joseph and their daughter. You have to think of it more as an adoption, I think he was marrying these different women to link them to the priesthood so they could learn the temple ceremonies.
To me, David Whitmer's words dont seem to be some spiritual jibjab, at least acknowledge that if you claim to do interviews based on facts :""Some of the 71 recorded interviews he gave between 1838 and 1888 contained different details than others.[36] Recounting the vision to Orson Pratt in 1878, Whitmer claimed to have seen not only the golden plates but the "Brass Plates, the plates containing the record of the wickedness of the people of the world ... the sword of Laban, the Directors (i.e. the ball which Lehi had) and the Interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed".[37]""
Hi Karoly, I think all I said of David Whitmer in particular was that the Church has used parts of his publication "An Address to All Believers in Christ" that have supported its correlated narrative while ignoring the other statements in the same statement that do not. For example--the most obvious question--if you take the statements from him in the quotes in your comment as the truth, I would wonder why you do not believe him when he stated that Joseph was a fallen prophet? I know we talk a lot more about the Church's use of partial statements in the series I did with Radio Free Mormon (Episodes 259, 260, and 262) in the section discussing "the rule of completeness" if you're interested in a more detailed discussion on the topic. This interview was intended to be a lot more conversational and I'd love your take on those episodes where we do dig into the facts in greater detail, if that would interest you. Thanks for listening--either way.
Kolby has to use small bits and pieces to prove his point like almost all exmormons that try to seem like experts. They do this to confuse ppl. He would never go on a podcast with someone that could call out his BS.
@@DRT279 Mormons, JW's and Catholics all believe that their "church" is the only way to heaven, but the true church knows that salvation through Jesus (as Lord *AND* SAVIOR) alone (as stated in the Bible) is the only way to heaven !
That’s not Hyrum. That’s an ACTUAL depiction of Joseph Smith as recently discovered from one of his descendants found in a locket. Alongside his youngest (14 yr old) bride. Try being a little less condescending in your comments 🤷♀️
@@CultstoConsciousness Ya, I'm aware of that. But that narrative doesn't really fly. There are people expert in the field like John Hajicek that explain much better than I can why the face lines match Hyrum, plus there are other issues with it, ie the whole process of photo techniques. But believe who you will, I don't care. Just thought I'd expand your mind a little more, ha, ha.
@@americanmanstan2381 Your superiority complex is visible. If you are a true believing Mormon, you would address the issue with compassion and kindness. Instead, you come accross as arrogant. That's not a good impression of a Christian.
@@elizabethgrogan8553 I'm goading you with my alleged arrogance. You can't tell? But you're dishing it back....like, oh... I really feel guilty for not coming across as compassionate. Your faux concern is noted. I guess you didn't dig into the link I gave you. And no, I'm not a "true believing Mormon." But I do believe Joseph was a prophet and the BOM is true. There are problems after that. He didn't start polygamy, Brigham did. There are books written about it and many YT's from people who did their research, like Rob Fotheringham. You should really check it out instead of being an angry ex-mormon.
But inside you have nothing but anger guilt low self esteem. You get off on hurting people because it's the only thing you have to cling to that makes you feel valid. Your transparent I see right through it. You have hurt many people and that's sums you up. That's why no one likes you John. Tell me where I'm wrong or just be amazed at how I can see right inside you.
Isn't it interesting that nobody kicks a dead dog? Thanks for reinforcing my unending testimony of the Book of Mormon. The problem we have here is that people try to equate the truthfulness of the church with the non-perfected members in it. No person on earth is perfect, including Joseph Smith. The faults of the members, including the leadership of the church are just people who have been asked to fulfill a calling or be a witness of our savior Jesus Christ. They are not perfected humans. If you want perfection, you need to die and look for someone there who is a perfected person. The Church of Jesus Christ is a perfect organization as far as we are made aware of through the scriptures and through revelation from God. It may be different from what I have said here but we only know what we know now. I find it very interesting that people have grudges against the church over, what someone in the church has done. The church is a living correct Church. If it's false, you need to ask yourself what exactly was it, that Joseph Smith gained from this fraud? The answer of course is nothing but a life full of hardships and eventually being martyred for his testimony. Yeah, that's exactly what I would like to have for my life....not.....What was in it for Joseph and his family? Nothing but hardship. The worst enemies of the church are past members who try to equate the church with the frailties of the unperfected people in it who, have be a victum or witness of somthing a leader or other member of the church has done. There are thousands of examples of that. That doesn't make the church itself false. If you think Joseph Smith wrote up this whole B of M. thing up, I would challenge you to write a book anywhere close to this record that Joseph Smith produced for us. It's an amazing record of the Natives in the Great Lakes region of our country. Some of those tribes have Hebrew DNA markers. Go figure
Google Mormon doctrine vs Christian doctrine. You'll see the LDS have scripture together better than the other churches. This is proof Latter Day Saint scripture is from above.
Orrr it’s proof that re-writing and revising is a good thing to do. The original BOM didn’t even have punctuation and was riddled with spelling errors among other things.
He is lying to you all. The letter is addressed to three people, Knewl K Whitney, his wife Elizabeth and his daughter Sarah. Sarah had been sealed to Joseph in July and then went home with her parents. There is no evidence that there was any sexual contact between them ever! At the time Joseph is in hiding and Emma is being followed by his enemies so it is not safe to come when she is there. The Whitneys had not yet been sealed, Joseph says to the Whitneys; "one thing I want to see you for is (to) get the fullness of my blessings sealed upon (y)our heads & you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject..." It is not a love letter! If this man will lie to you about this what else is he lying about!
People with this mindset will always end up as atheist/agnostic. He is trying to make religion something it is not. At the end of the day, you have to choose to believe in something. There is never going to be an objective standard of proof that verifies the truth of a religion. Religion is subjective, always has been and always will be
Your comment has lingered with me for quite some time and I'd like to respond. Why would you want to stake so much of your life, time, and money on something that cannot be determined to be true, except subjectively? As for the claim that I'm trying to "make religion something it is not"--when religions make claims about the way reality works, those claims can be tested like any other. Take for example the studies on intercessory prayer which actually show decreased likelihood of a favorable result than random chance (researchers presume because of the pressure of knowing other people are praying for you). If God or whatever you believe in has actual, real power, why can it not be detected or measured? As for the "you have to choose to believe in something" idea--do you not see how you've just pushed all the actual explanations off by one step? Every difficult to answer question like: why is there something rather than nothing, where do morals come from, how are we to treat each other--none of the answers are advanced one bit by appealing to a supernatural entity that cannot be detected in reality. I'm happy to explain or discuss what I mean by this further with you, if you'd like.
Proving or disproving in the eyes of God are not what we should be about? What we should know beyond a shadow of doubt is that God, Jesus Christ and The Holy Ghost are true! So irrespective of who you are, what you are about and what you are trying to define, is counter active on where you should be. Trust in God with all of your might mind and strength and let Him guide you to where you should be!
Hi Mark, I think you’re missing the point. Trusting with all your might is literally the opposite of knowing for a fact. Belief is fine, but you can’t expect others to blindly follow a religion, book or mythology that has no basis in reality or fact. Aside from some good feelings you have about it. Feelings are not facts. And that’s ok. But we aren’t here to confuse the two.
