To clarify (in case the title is misleading) - the LDS Church didn't forge anything... Mark Hofmann forged a series of documents that seemed to be important historical Mormon documents. If you're curious to learn more about this, check out chapter 15 of the Lighthouse biography (link right below this). The specific forgery spoken about in this video is the Salamander letter. Interestingly enough - the Salamander letter initially seemed to be a PROBLEM for the LDS Church, which is why it's so significant that Jerald believed it was a forgery. Even though it may have "helped" his case against the Mormon Church, it wasn't TRUE, and so he couldn't promote it. The whole ordeal put Jeralds scholarship and integrity on display. We're thankful to have faithful Christians like the Tanners working to promote truth! > Here's the link to the Lighthouse Biography: www.amazon.com/Lighthouse-Despised-Beloved-Critics-Mormonism/dp/1560854545/ > And here's the link to some other clips from this interview: kzread.info/head/PLAs5K46GJ7UI8D_ZlMA5MwqgTLL-NA1ql

There is a real sense of shock and disorientation when you experience this kind of discovery described by Sandra-seeing lifted phrases, storyline elements, etc. in the Book of Mormon and LDS Temple ceremonies. When you begin to see how it could all be man made-it’s frightening and you want to run from the discovery…I recall a time that that put Joseph Smith’s clear influences on display for me and showed decidedly that theses “revealed” truths were man made and pieces together from all the influences of Joseph Smiths personal moment in history…I remember one day in the middle of a Temple session thinking to myself, “What is John Bunyan (Pilgrim’s Progress) doing in the language of the temple ceremonies given to Adam and Eve?!?” I was startled, disoriented, uncertain. But immediately, nearly instinctively got to work dismissing it, justifying it, pushing it away with every bit of effort I could. Crushing the impulse to think critically was my initial response. But truth did not bend to my fears. And now I see. Praise God-He is merciful.

Jerald Tanner was a man who sought to pursue truth wherever it took him.

He was a man of integrity, that much is sure! Even when the truth cuts against our interests, it’s important to be honest-in the end, the truth will win out. There are more than enough Biblical reasons to reject Mormonism; we gain nothing by making compromises to dunk on the Mormons. I have tremendous respect for Mr. Tanner, and I’m inspired by his integrity

@dleoburns

Жыл бұрын

Did you read the Salamander Letter and the information I received from Wikipedia? There is not a lot about Mr. Tanner there! We Mormons have the King James Bible as one of our scriptures.

That Gerald had both the keen eye to spot that this was a forgery and the integrity to publicly call it out as such (even though it would have been MUCH to his advantage to keep quiet) speaks volumes not only about him but also about his work on other topics, especially other allegedly historical documents (including the Book of Mormon itself).

Praise God they stood for truth like that

Thank you for these videos.

I love Sandra and I will move to Utah and take care of her in her "Golden Years"

Fascinating

Glad they helped prove the Salamander Letter was a fraud. Many church members were disturbed by its content as well as it was inconsistent with other church doctrine.

You know this is how the masses are bamboozled. Do you know that the youmng missionaries of the Mormon church are not aware of this situation?

God Loves Mormons: “The salamander letter was a controversial document about the history of the Latter Day Saint movement that later proved to be a forgery.[1] The letter was one of hundreds of documents concerning the history of the Latter Day Saint movement that surfaced in the early 1980s. The salamander letter presented a view of the life of the movement's founder, Joseph Smith, that stood sharply at odds with the commonly accepted version of the early progression of the church Smith established. Initially accepted by some document experts and collectors, and rejected by others,[2][page needed] the salamander letter generated much discussion and debate inside and outside the Latter Day Saint movement. Kenneth W. Rendell, a prominent dealer of historical papers, lent credence to the salamander letter by stating that the ink, paper, and postmark were all consistent with the period; he concluded that "there is no indication that the document is a forgery."[3] The document was later demonstrated to be a forgery created by Mark Hofmann, who had been responsible for the forgery of many other notable documents. Rendell then recast his conclusion, stating that while there was "the absence of any indication of forgery in the letter itself, there was also no evidence that it was genuine."[4] [Wikipedia/Salamander Letter/Introduction] This Document is footnoted as follows: [1] How Two Document Examiners solved the Case of the Salamander Letter (George Throckmorton and William Flynn), [2] Naifeh, Steven; Smith, Gregory White, [3] Naifeh, Steven; Smith, Gregory White, And [4] Rendell, Kenneth W. (1994). “Text Palmyra October 23d 1830 Dear Sir Your letter of yesterday is received & I hasten to answer as fully as I can-Joseph Smith Jr first come to my notice in the year 1824 in the summer of that year I contracted with his father to build a fence on my property in the corse [sic] of that work I approach Joseph & ask how it is in a half day you put up what requires your father & 2 brothers a full day working together he says I have not been with out assistance but can not say more only you better find out the next day I take the older Smith by the arm & he says Joseph can see any thing he wishes by looking at a stone Joseph often sees Spirits here with great kettles of coin money it was Spirits who brought up rock because Joseph made no attempt on their money I latter [sic] dream I converse with spirits which let me count their money when I awake I have in my hand a dollar coin which I take for a sign Joseph describes what I seen in every particular says he the spirits are grieved so I through [sic] back the dollar in the fall of the year 1827 I hear Joseph found a gold bible I take Joseph aside & he says it is true I found it 4 years ago with my stone but only just got it because of the enchantment the old spirit come to me 3 times in the same dream & says dig up the gold but when I take it up the next morning the spirit transfigured himself from a white salamander in the bottom of the hole & struck me 3 times & held the treasure & would not let me have it because I lay it down to cover over the hole when the spirit says do not lay it down Joseph says when can I have it the spirit says one year from to day if you obay [sic] me look to the stone after a few days he looks the spirit says bring your brother Alvin Joseph says he is dead shall I bring what remains but the spirit is gone Joseph goes to get the gold bible but the spirit says you did not bring your brother you can not have it look to the stone Joseph looks but can not see who to bring the spirit says I tricked you again look to the stone Joseph looks & sees his wife on the 22d day of Sept 1827 they get the gold bible-I give Joseph $50 to move him down to Pa Joseph says when you visit me I will give you a sign he gives me some hieroglyphics I take then to Utica Albany & New York in the last place Dr Mitchel gives me an introduction to Professor Anthon says he they are short hand Egyption [sic] the same what was used in ancient times bring me the old book & I will translate says I it is made of precious gold & is sealed from view says he I can not read a sealed book-Joseph found some giant silver spectacles with the plates he puts them in an old hat & in the darkness reads the words & in this way it is all translated & written down-about the middle of June 1829 Joseph takes me together with Oliver Cowdery & David Whitmer to have a view of the plates our names are appended to the book of Mormon which I had printed with my own money-space and time both prevent me from writing more at present if there is any thing further you wish to inquire I shall attend to it Yours Respect Martin Harris” [Wikipedia/Salamander Letter/Text]

A scam it was and Mormons should really ask themselves why didn't their 12 Apostles or why not their leader "the Living Prophet" get any revelation or hear words from God that it was a hoax?

So here's my dilemma. Having read the entirety of The Book of Mormon multiple times (as well as replicas of the original publication), it is incredibly hard for me to believe that ANY man (or group of men) could come up with the narrative, the allegories, the battle strategies, the teachings, the doctrine, or even the alleged plagiarized parts of the bible they hint at in this interview during a span of 65 days (7 months if you include how long it took Joseph Smith and his helpers to find a publisher). That, and they managed to intertwine all of them together coherently, without leaving any plot line or principle unfinished. As for the Salamander letter argument, it takes a giant leap in logic to prove that those men copied Martin Harris. All you have proven is correlation, not plagiarism. But back to The Book of Mormon--even if it wasn't translated by the gift and power of God, why would these men have written such a thing? Why devote their entire lives to some work of supposed plagiarism and historical fiction? Especially something that teaches and preaches about Jesus Christ in a very positive way. You would think that if the authors of the book were inspired by the devil, they would do everything they could to lead people away from Jesus, right? You would think they would disavow the Old and New Testaments, instead of use them to promote goodness. I reject the premise that there was any plagiarism, but even if there were, so what? How would that make the work any less true--especially since the claim is that they plagiarized from one of the truest books on the planet? You can say all you want about Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon, but if you actually read it, you cannot truthfully say that it is not a good book on its own merits. Good in a sense of it being a work of art, and good in the sense of it teaching positive principles for life. You cannot attack the roots of this book without facing a mountain of objections, evidence, questions, and reason that go to its favor. This comment only contained a few. Just think about how many walls you completely have to ignore to prop up the argument that they are making. It's not worth the time.

@BNichols021

Жыл бұрын

One look at LDS history can exemplify many motives for doing such a thing. LDS leadership (for better or for worse) held a position of power and authority over its members which could have potentially been used to their advantage, whether financially, socially, etc. And then there was the fact that Joseph was able to take over 30 wives because he said it was at the command of the Lord.

@LuceroG322

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it is so beautifully wrapped on the outside but Joseph Smith bore a false testimony of who Jesus and God are. His main teaching is that if we’re good enough i.e… temple recommend worthiness… the check list. Then God will give us all these good “things” but God already gave us Jesus and all we’re supposed to do is believe. That belief results in true repentance and forgiveness. We can never be good enough but we try because we have a changed heart. God came to earth from Heaven to be human, Joseph falsely taught that we can become gods in the heavens depending on our church status. The serpent in the garden told Adam and Eve something similar. Joseph used bribery. “Those who humble themselves will be exalted and those who exalt themselves will be humbled” We can’t work our way to heaven. We can’t earn favoritism from our Heavenly Father. JS complicated a simple gospel. When we look for it without the Mormon goggles we can clearly see the contradictions between his teaching and the Bible. I pray that you will. God’s blessings to you of peace, comfort and joy in the new year :)

@dleoburns

Жыл бұрын

CD4her: “And then there was the fact that Joseph was able to take over 30 wives because he said it was at the command of the Lord.” Where is the evidence of that fact? There is no evidence of the fact you stated. “The first publication of a list of women alleged to be Smith's plural wives was in 1887, by Andrew Jenson, an assistant LDS Church historian. It included 27 women besides Emma Smith.[6] There are currently 49 women on this list. However, historians disagree as to the number and identity of the plural wives Smith had. Various scholars and historians, including Fawn M. Brodie, George D. Smith,[7] and Todd Compton, have attempted to identify the women who married Smith.[8] The discrepancy is created by the lack of documents to support some of the alleged marriages. As Compton has stated, for many of these marriages, "absolutely nothing is known of [the] marriage after the ceremony."[9] Apart from his marriage to Emma, Smith's marriages were not solemnized under any civil authority and were therefore solely religious unions.” [Wikipedia/List of Joseph Smith’s wives/Introduction (paragraph # 2)] None of these three historians were contemporary with Joseph Smith, Jr. They do not agree on which were wives or how many he had! So, how did you come up with 30 wives? The doctrine of plural wives is found in the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Doctrine & Covenants 132:61 “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood-if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. 41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. 42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery. 43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.” The requirements for plural marriage included the consent of the first wife, the virginity of any other wife, and all other wives could not be vowed to another man. It would be impossible to receive a married woman under this doctrine. So, why are some women married to other men listed as Joseph’s wives? The fourth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints withdrew the authority to perform plural marriages (polygyny) in 1890. That is found in the standard works at Doctrine & Covenants Official Decision 1.

@dleoburns

Жыл бұрын

user-di2ff1jc7t: “Yes, it is so beautifully wrapped on the outside but Joseph Smith bore a false testimony of who Jesus and God are.” Pearl of Great Price/Articles of Faith #1: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” “His main teaching is that if we’re good enough i.e… temple recommend worthiness… the check list. Then God will give us all these good “things” but God already gave us Jesus and all we’re supposed to do is believe.” Doctrine & Covenants 137:7 “Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.” “Joseph falsely taught that we can become gods in the heavens depending on our church status. The serpent in the garden told Adam and Eve something similar.” Genesis 3:4 (AKJV) “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Psalm 82:6 (AKJV) “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” John 10: 34 (AKJV) “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” In both the Bible (which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts) and LDS scriptures the children of the most High are called gods. So, what is the problem with that?

Not “LDS” forged documents. Documents forged by a serial forgery fraud. So the headline here is misleading. There were lots who agreed with its authenticity and those that disagreed. Tanner only being one. Very misleading for anyone who doesn’t know the history on this. Click bait.

@GLM

Жыл бұрын

Gah - yeah, I tried to find a good title within my character limit! The forgeries were supposedly early Mormon documents -- not that the LDS Church forged them, but that they were forged historical Mormon documents... Difficult to communicate in a title. The book that this interview is promoting (the "Lighthouse" book) goes into far more detail about the forgeries, and explains it well. In any case - I apologize if the title is misleading, I tried my best to communicate the details within my character limitations. I'll post a pinned comment with more details.

And you believe in a fake trinitarian god. Please show me: Where is the trinity theory put forward in scripture? Which book, chapter or verse teaches one God in three persons? What verse mentions the words "coeternal" "coessential" or "coequal?" Where is hypostatic union, eternal generation or one substance? God is not a trinity.God never tells us he is a trinity. The Hebrew words for God: Adonai, Yahweh, Elohim never mean a trinity. God is: "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." A Father is an individual, not a trinity. The words: I, me, he, him, single personal pronouns are used of God about 20k times in the Bible. Jesus told us the greatest commandment is: "Hear Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29) God is never referred to as a trinity.

@SincerelyHannah9

Жыл бұрын

I’d likewise ask you to tell us where in the Bible (or even the Book of Mormon) it explicitly says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate gods and that the Son and Spirit were birthed by Heavenly Father and one of his wives…..

@nute742

Жыл бұрын

​@@SincerelyHannah9 An interesting topic it is (I agree). However even the bible gives multiple accounts (to their "individualities"). (1) When Jesus prayed to the father he said "Not my will be done, but thine will (he was specific in mentioning this)" (2) When Jesus was baptized a voice from heaven was heard saying "This is my beloved son in whom Im well pleased". In addition to this the Holy ghost was also present (in the form of a dove) - so all three members of the Godhead were present at the same time then! (3) Jesus said, I've done nothing save I've seen what my father has done. In addition to these (biblical references) there are many others accounts. But the big question would be "why would Jesus pray to himself"? His obedience to his father (not himself) was what brought him into being humble, and righteous. These things only confirm - the B.O.M, and other scriptures (where God the Father and Son) were both together at the same time. This is amazing because even amongst the confusion and doubt (through variations of christian sects) It confirms the very nature of God (and Jesus too). They are "one in purpose" but 3 separate beings (God, Jesus + the Holy Ghost). However the most important thing though (hopefully we can all agree on ) is their love and righteousness. Anyway food for thought and God bless! :)

@le7262

Жыл бұрын

@elimason, this video (the one in the link below) is a good starting point to consider…I hope you’ll check it out. Nabeel Quereshi is a former Muslim but his experiences are relatable to a broad array of people from across faiths who are deliberating on the topic of the Trinity. Truly hope you find the short video below useful in some way (it answers your question directly and quickly). May God be with you. kzread.info/dash/bejne/p2R-0tmIg664c5M.html

@elimason7954

Жыл бұрын

@@SincerelyHannah9 Why can't you answer, where the Bible clearly teaches that God is a trinity?

@BellDavidE

Жыл бұрын

​@@nute742 You asked, Why would Jesus pray to himself? I hear that a lot from Latter-day Saints. First, I think you’re probably confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism, which basically states that God manifests himself singularly in different modes (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) at different times. And the examples that you give definitely refute Modalism, in my opinion. But like you, we believe in a distinctiveness between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Really, oneness and distinctiveness are largely what the doctrine of the Trinity is all about. We believe that the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God, and yet it also shows there is a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that each is God. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son or the Father. And yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, and there is but one Eternal God. That’s the doctrine of the Trinity in a nutshell. We normally use the language that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one *Being* but separate *Persons.* The word “Person” is used for lack of a better term (there are other Latin and Greek terms that are probably better but useless to the English speaker). In our human experience, we tend to think of a *person* as the same as a *being* and we think of a person as having a body, so “person” isn’t a perfect word for this but seems to be the best we have in English. The distinction of personhood in the doctrine of God is, in part, the ability to commune and love, to relate in the first and second person (me/you). This “I-ness”-“you-ness” consciousness exists in the relationships within the Trinity. So the doctrine of the Trinity embraces the otherness/distinctiveness within the Godhead while still embracing monotheism, which I realize you don’t believe in. There is definitely mystery in this but I don’t reject it because it is mystery. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts,” and they always will be. Part of faith is accepting mystery for what it is and relying on God despite not having all the answers. The Christian faith contains both certainties and mysteries.