Iowa.Resident

@jesse_k_fox Genuinely respectfully trying to make it all make sense here.

I believe once he lost the 116 pages he realized that it wouldn’t be wise to try and transcribe them again because then people could call him a fraud. So he just moved on with what he was producing. BoA has radical and some inspired doctrine, imo. But, I believe there is a good chance that he simply got the translation completely wrong. He thought he knew what he was translating and he just didn’t. It’s that simple. The Book of Mormon is miraculous and is a testament of Christ. But is it a perfect history, I don’t know?

Just got done listening to this podcast. I wasn’t impressed. This guy Bill is producing a bunch of books in a matter of hours using AI. That’s interesting. Anyway, he says since 2012 he’s been “helping people figure out the messiness of Mormonism.” That’s a nice thing to do. Then he brings up Occam’s Razor and the CES Letter. I love the philosophical idea of Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the best). I personally use it all the time. I also love discussing all the points in the CES Letter, I’ve done it for many years. But then he starts to say how he’s come up with these 30 topics that if any logical person reads they are just “absurd” to continue believing Mormonism. And how the “only answer” from a person to continue believing is “God works in mysterious ways and we just have to have faith.” Well, Bill, I’ve been doing this since 2007 and so far I’ve been able to logically reconstruct every single topic I’ve ever come across. There has not been a single topic that I have not been able to explain to myself using Occam’s Razor as the foundation and making Mormonism work, every single time.

@jesse_k_fox Well yeah but if he was getting the translation wrong or receiving revelation instead that should be the church position….but isn’t. And if he got it wrong, how is it valuable?

@tylerbegan124 @jesse_k_fox Seems like the church is heading in that direction and I wish they would . It would make the whole thing more palatable. The constant change is a 🚩

@IowaResideav @jesse_k_fox I think the modern mormon apologist belief/teaching is that the Book of Mormon is not a translation, instead it’s an inspired revelation. I swear, in a decade from now they’ll teach that the golden plates were not real, they’re just symbolic.

@jesse_k_fox @tylerbegan124 Just curious because Joesph said the words would disappear from the stone once confirmed correct. So why couldn’t he just re-do the 116 pages and have the stone confirm them correct again?

To me the 116 is easy. Joseph is smart and knew that if he tried to transcribe those pages again that there is a chance that someone else will call him a fraud because they have a copy. Whatever he was producing had to be an original. Outside of the chapters from the Bible of course. But everyone already had those, so that wasn’t a problem. The Book of Mormon is a work of God. It’s miraculous what he produced. No one has been able to explain it in 196 years. No one has ever been able to recreate what he did. It’s a testament of Christ. I love it.

@jesse_k_fox Also the coming forth of the endowment shortly after JS became a Mason.

@IowaResideav He didn’t give a list of the points. I’m happy to share all of my reconstruction views. Not sure where to begin. Can you give me a few you might be interested it?

@AlderNate AI will make anything true that you tell it to.

People keep repeating “the Book of Abraham was disproven by the papyri” without realizing how weak and outdated that argument actually is. A few facts critics usually leave out: 1. Most of the original papyri collection was destroyed in the 1871 Chicago fire. The fragments rediscovered in 1967 are only a small portion of what Joseph Smith originally possessed. Even LDS critics acknowledge this. 2. The surviving fragments were never definitively proven to be the direct source text for the entire Book of Abraham. That is an assumption critics make, not an established fact. 3. Ancient traditions about Abraham discovered long after Joseph Smith closely parallel Book of Abraham material: - Abraham nearly sacrificed by idol priests - Abraham teaching astronomy - Abraham opposing Egyptian idolatry - Abraham connected with Egyptian learning These themes appear in later-discovered Jewish and Egyptian texts like: - Apocalypse of Abraham - Testament of Abraham - Josephus - various Second Temple traditions How exactly did a 19th century farm boy independently reproduce obscure ancient traditions scholars would not fully uncover until generations later? 4. Facsimile 1 is especially interesting. The figure on the lion couch was long mocked by critics as “obviously not Abraham.” Yet modern Egyptologists now acknowledge lion couch scenes were associated with themes of resurrection, deliverance, and ritual transition from death to life. That suddenly makes Joseph’s interpretation far less ridiculous than critics once claimed. 5. The Book of Abraham also contains surprisingly sophisticated cosmological concepts: - organized creation instead of creation from absolute nothingness - premortal existence - divine council imagery - layered heavens - intelligences existing before mortal life Those ideas align far more closely with ancient Near Eastern and early Jewish thought than with mainstream 19th century Protestantism. The pattern is becoming obvious: Critics confidently declare something impossible… then archaeology, textual discoveries, or scholarship complicates the narrative years later. At some point, “Joseph just guessed correctly over and over” becomes the less rational explanation.

@tylerbegan124 @jesse_k_fox Same with most 116 pages?

@jesse_k_fox Curious, how can you possibly use Occam’s Razor to defend the Book of Abraham? There must be mental gymnastics involved.

@RedHotFuzz @AlderNate If that’s what you need to tell yourself. The timeline doesn’t match up though with the King James Bible being written much later than the Book of Mormon text would have had to have been.

@IowaResideav @AlderNate It’s almost as if God spoke to His children on both sides of the globe through prophets, and He told them the same things.

For nearly 200 years, critics have claimed Joseph Smith “wrote” the Book of Mormon. Okay. Then prove it. Not with assumptions. Not with ridicule. Not with recycled anti-LDS theories that collapse every few decades. Actually prove HOW he did it. Show the drafts. Show the outline. Show the research notes. Show the source manuscript. Show the co-authors. Show the revision process. Because what we DO know is this: A 23-year-old frontier farm boy dictated ~500 pages in roughly 60 working days with: • no formal education • no manuscript in front of him • no rewrites • no library surrounding him • no modern editing tools And somehow produced: • complex narrative arcs • hundreds of interconnected names • intricate Hebraic literary structures like chiasmus • ancient Near Eastern themes • internally consistent geography, politics, theology, and chronology Critics have proposed dozens of theories: • Spaulding theory • plagiarism theory • conspiracy theory • “he was a genius” theory And when those fail, some even claim: “The devil did it.” But that creates an even bigger problem. The Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ constantly. In fact, the name “Jesus Christ” appears more frequently in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible when adjusted for length. Its entire stated purpose is to bring people unto Christ, teach repentance, condemn sin, strengthen faith in the Savior, and testify that Jesus is the Son of God and Redeemer of the world. So the argument becomes: Satan inspired a book whose entire purpose is to convince people to follow Jesus Christ? That completely contradicts scripture itself: “Satan divideth against himself and against none else.” (3 Nephi 18:20) The Book of Mormon leads millions to: • pray more • repent more • worship Christ more • read scripture more • strengthen families • abandon addictions • serve others • seek holiness That is the exact opposite of the fruits Christ warned us about when describing false spirits. Critics have spent nearly 200 years attacking Joseph Smith, yet they still cannot explain where the Book of Mormon actually came from. At some point, dismissing Joseph Smith requires more faith than listening to him. Because if he didn’t translate it… Where exactly did the Book of Mormon come from? One thing critics rarely acknowledge: The Book of Mormon is not just “about Jesus Christ.” It is saturated with Him. Jesus Christ is referenced 3,925 times in the Book of Mormon — roughly once every 1.7 verses. And that matters because some critics literally claim: “The devil inspired the Book of Mormon.” Think about that for a second. The same book that: • teaches faith in Jesus Christ • teaches repentance • condemns sin • calls people to baptism • strengthens families • teaches charity • testifies of Christ’s atonement • invites people to pray • repeatedly declares Jesus is the Son of God …is supposedly satanic? That argument collapses under its own weight. Critics still cannot explain how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon naturally: • no drafts • no outline • no manuscript • no formal education • dictated in roughly 60 working days • deeply Hebraic literary patterns • internally consistent narrative structure So when natural explanations fail, some jump to: “Well maybe Satan did it.” But Christ Himself taught: “A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.” Why would Satan inspire a book whose entire purpose is bringing people TO Jesus Christ? At some point, critics have to do more than mock Joseph Smith. They need to explain the Book of Mormon itself.

@ShaunMcKnight @Primary_Pianist The presentation mechanism is literally the endowment. You can separate the actions from the endowment. If you can I’d love to know how.

@Primary_Pianist 💯 Correct. The format serves as an instruction/presentation mechanism. It is not the endowment in any way.

Every few weeks someone discovers the words “Mormonism” and “Masonry” in the same sentence and immediately acts like they’ve cracked the Da Vinci Code. Yes, Joseph Smith became a Mason. No, he did not grow up in a lodge being trained from childhood to invent temples. Please be serious.

@Primary_Pianist Joesph Smith literal copied the Mason handshakes. How can you say otherwise?

“Masonry influenced some Nauvoo-era presentation forms” is a discussion adults can have. “Joseph copied the temple from Masonry” is what happens when someone learns history from a meme and then mistakes confidence for scholarship.

@RedHotFuzz @AlderNate Yes I’m fact JS lift much of the KJB and copied it straight into the Book of Mormon.

@IowaResideav @AlderNate And the King James Bible is a 17th century text. What’s your point?

Wow, I rarely see this kind of blatant, public racism. What a terrible thing to say about a group of people you’ve never met or a place you’ve never been. This comment seriously hurt my heart.

@AlderNate You keep saying the events of the BOM took place in the americas that haven’t been explored. Moroni and Joesph said the plates were buried in the Hill Cumorah. Somehow these civilizations lived thousands of miles away from the Hill Cumorah?

@IowaResideav But that argument actually supports my point, not yours. The Bible has had thousands of years of preservation, massive state sponsorship, continuous habitation, global excavation efforts, and generations of scholars searching specifically for biblical evidence. Entire nations, universities, museums, and civilizations preserved and investigated biblical lands for centuries. The Book of Mormon has had less than 200 years of serious investigation, deals largely with civilizations that collapsed long before European contact, and covers regions where jungles, erosion, earthquakes, volcanic activity, conquest, disease, and later civilizations dramatically altered the landscape. Even then, critics still overstate the case by claiming the Book of Mormon has been “proven false.” It hasn’t. There is no inscription saying: “Joseph Smith made this up.” No excavation disproving every possibility. No DNA standard capable of reconstructing every small migration and population mixture over thousands of years. Instead, what exists are debates over interpretation, geography, genetics, timelines, and incomplete evidence — which is exactly the situation with many ancient historical questions, including some tied to the Bible itself. And honestly, archaeology is constantly changing. Entire civilizations once mocked as mythical were later discovered. Critics once used the Hittites, Belshazzar, and other biblical references as examples of “proven errors” until archaeology caught up. The reality is that absence of complete evidence is not the same thing as proof of falsehood. Especially when dealing with ancient civilizations in the Americas that were devastated by conquest, disease, jungle overgrowth, population collapse, and thousands of years of environmental change.

One thing I’ve always found interesting is the double standard many anti-LDS critics use. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, critics suddenly become hardcore materialists. They demand archaeological evidence, scientific proof, DNA evidence, historical records, geography, etc. They act as though a religious text can only be true if every detail is already fully verified by modern academia. Yet when atheists use those exact same arguments against the Bible — questioning miracles, Exodus, Noah’s flood, resurrection accounts, authorship, archaeology, or supposed contradictions — many of those same critics immediately switch positions and say things like: “You have to take it on faith.” “Not everything can be proven scientifically.” “God is bigger than human evidence.” So which is it? If faith is a valid principle for the Bible, why is it suddenly invalid for the Book of Mormon? And honestly, the claim that there is “zero evidence” for the Book of Mormon just isn’t true. Over time, more evidence continues to emerge involving ancient Semitic writing styles, Hebraisms, ancient Middle Eastern cultural parallels, chiasmus, NHM/Nahom, ancient cement references, metal plates, and other details Joseph Smith realistically could not have fabricated in 1829 as an uneducated farm boy. People are free to reject LDS beliefs, but the inconsistency is hard to ignore. Too often the standard becomes: “Faith and incomplete evidence are acceptable for my religion, but not for yours.” As Christians, we should all be honest and consistent in how we evaluate faith, history, and evidence.

@AlderNate You keep saying these civilizations were in the americas as if they were somewhere other than the area surrounding upstate New York where the plates were found in the Hill Cumorah. Did moroni somehow bury the plates thousands of miles from where the civilizations lived?

@AlderNate I think it’s more that the Book of Mormon can be proven as not historical and not archeological more easily than the Bible can because of the buffer of time for the Bible.

@IowaResideav But that is true of Christianity in general. If Christ literally did not resurrect, Christianity collapses. Paul explicitly says that in 1 Corinthians 15. The Bible itself makes historical claims tied to real events, real people, and real places. Christianity is not merely “symbolic truth.” It stands or falls on historical reality too. The same applies to the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Church teaches it is a real ancient record. That is not “forcing the issue.” That is simply being internally consistent about its claims. The real question is whether critics are applying fair standards. Because even with the Bible: - not every city has been found, - scholars still debate locations and timelines, - archaeology has unresolved tensions, - manuscripts contain variations, - genetics complicates simplistic readings of Genesis, - and many biblical events rely partly on faith, testimony, and cumulative evidence. Yet most Christians do not conclude: “therefore Christianity is false.” Instead they allow room for: - incomplete archaeology, - ongoing discovery, - unresolved questions, - historical gaps, - and faith alongside evidence. That same grace is almost never extended to the Book of Mormon. And despite constant claims otherwise, the Church is not teaching: “We have already proven every Book of Mormon city archaeologically.” The actual position is that the Book of Mormon is an ancient sacred record, and over time there continue to be interesting evidentiary parallels involving: - Semitic literary structures, - chiasmus, - Nahom/NHM, - ancient Middle Eastern cultural patterns, - metal records, - cement references, - warfare structures, - and numerous details Joseph Smith realistically would not have understood in 1829. No single item “proves” the Book of Mormon. But that is rarely how ancient history works. And honestly, people dramatically underestimate how much of ancient American history remains unresolved. Entire civilizations disappeared before modern documentation. Massive ruins are still being discovered beneath jungle and earth. Population collapse after European contact erased enormous amounts of history. The standard critics often demand for the Book of Mormon is not the same standard they use for the Bible, ancient history generally, or even their own assumptions about human origins and archaeology. That inconsistency is the point.

@hankrsmith Hank, what do I do if I love what the church teaches about the atonement, Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation but I don’t believe Joesph Smith was a prophet or the Book of Mormon is legit and the temple freaks me out.

What would you do if this were true? You have Heavenly Parents who love you. You have a Savior who knows you individually — and whose power can transform you. And in the next life, you will have as much of heaven as you are willing to receive.