Luke Hanson @LukeFHan

@AP5161465041727 You watched the whole video in 3 minutes? Lol

I literally quoted a passage where people worship Jesus in the Book of Mormon. Another reason why it's a good idea to read it before commenting on it.

A P @AP5161465041727

a day ago

@LukeFHan If you can't pray to Jesus or worship him I don't need to read your magical book to know you're not a christian

7 0 7 3K 0

@AP5161465041727 I've addressed this in a previous video youtu.be/DIVp0GFSZTQ?is…

@CoachK_8 @actsofapostles_ Ah, yes I wanted to be a little bit spicy. Make it clear Ethan was being ridiculous, but stay cool and reasonable.

I disagree with the latter part. Latter-day Saints sincerely worship Jesus Christ and intend to worship the Jesus revealed in Scripture (just as we, Nicene Christians, intend to worship the Jesus revealed in Scripture). However, LDS theology understands Jesus differently in essential ways—especially regarding His eternal divinity, His relation to the Father, and the nature of God. We can recognize their devotion to Jesus while also being honest that we do not share precisely the same doctrine of who Jesus is.

Dimitri Federico @DimitriFed

14 hours ago

@realDrTT The LDS people I have known are lovely and wonderful humans. I respect them and their right to believe whatever they want. The resistance they're getting online is due to their insistence that they be included in Christendom when they worship a wholly different Jesus and reject

7 0 2 9K 0

@CoachK_8 @actsofapostles_ Haha, I'm curious what specifically you were worried about

@dgates33 @Primary_Pianist Thanks!

@Salt_n_Smoke @emuse1955 Yes, so you have to assume your own position to disprove mine. It's unfalsifiable, and therefore a poor argument. My argument is based on shared assumptions

A good test of your arguments would be if your fellow Catholic apologists pick them up. Or Latter-day Saint-turned-Catholic Issac Hess of your arguments. Or a knowledgeable protestant like Kyle Beshears. Or even Dr Rob Bowman. If I was a betting man I'd say it's not going to happen. Though this more toned-down claim you're presenting now could work, but it makes the leap to "it must have been a demon" all that harder to make. Those who favor a more naturalistic origin make the same arguments, even religious people.

I addressed 3 in my opening. Demons can say true things, but we have to test the fruits. The fruits of the Book of Mormon are good. Ethan's argument seemed to be that because the verse was talking about prophets, the fruits test doesn't apply to the Book of Mormon. So demons can produce good things, just not good people. But he clearly wasn't committed to this position because he also tried to get around or downplay the good fruits of the Book of Mormon. He also couldn't seem to decide if the book was good or not, showing a lack of commitment to the idea that it's okay for demons to make good things.

@LDSFarmer I agree it was stupid. Ethan picked the topic.

Christians, would you take someone seriously who said they had read 30% of the Bible and were sure it taught Arianism. (Yes this is referring to the debate)

Matt Fradd famously called the Book of Mormon demonic and made a video on 7 reasons Joseph Smith is a false prophet, Trent Horn debated the Book of Mormon and even did a video with a Latter-day Saint on whether the Church is demonic, Joe Heschmeyer has done multiple videos on the Church plus debates and a multi-hour interview with Fradd. Yet NONE of Ethan's fellow Catholics treat this argument as a silver bullet like Ethan does, in fact I'm not sure they even mention it, maybe in passing. Why? Because Ethan's argument only carried weight if you use his assumptions. Treasure guardians have to be demons. It's impossible that Joseph mistook a spirit for a treasure guardian (remember the disciples reaction to Jesus walking on water?). It's impossible that Joseph's understandings of spirits when he was 17 was underdeveloped. It's impossible that the Smith families views on spirits don't fit neatly into Ethan's categories. And why is Ethan taking this as gospel truth when he said in the debate that Joseph was totally untrustworthy? Here are the descriptions of the angel in the earliest accounts : 1829 - Josephs uncle "he writes that the angel of the Lord has revealed to him the hidden treasures of wisdom & knowledge, even divine revelation, which has lain in the bowels of the earth for thousands of years [and] is at last made known to him, he says he has eyes to see things that art not, and then has the audacity to say they are; and the angel of the Lord (Devil it should be) has put me in possession of great wealth," 1829 - Palmyra newspaper: "Joseph Smith, of Manchester, Ontario county, reported that he had been visited in a dream by the spirit of the Almighty and informed that in a certain hill in that town, was deposited this Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of a divine nature and origin" 1830 - Three witnesses: shown plates by angel of the Lord (though this isn't directly and account of Moroni's visit) 1830 - D&C 20 (Joseph's actual first account of the event) "For after that <​it​> truly was manifested unto this first Elder that he had Received a remission of his sins he was entangeled again in the vanities of the world but after truly Repenting God ministered unto him by an Holy Angel whose countenance was as Lightning & whose garments were pure & white above all whiteness & gave unto him Commandments which inspired him from on high & gave unto him power by the means of which was before prepared that he should translate a Book which Book contained a record of a fallen People & also the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" 1830 - Letter from non-LDs source "He [Smith] claimed that the angel of the Lord had appeared and made known to him that in the neighborhood of Palmyra, there were golden plates hidden in the earth on which was written the fate of a Jewish prophet’s family, together with many as yet unfulfilled prophesies, and that the Lord had appointed him to translate the same from ancient languages into English." 1832 - unpublished Joseph Smith history - "when I was seventeen years of age I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me and it was by night and he called me by name and he said the Lord had forgiven me my sins and he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers the servants of the living God in ancient days." Joseph reports going to the hill and being unable to obtain the plates because he wanted to use them for personal gain. 1834 - Mormonism Unvailed accounts of spirits with heavier treasure guardian and occult themes (like Moroni being a toad at first) Hopefully you can see why even Christians, including most Catholics, don't use accounts about Moroni as definitive proof of demons. Usually they will say Joseph was influenced by treasure guardian beliefs and there is a possibility of demonic influence, but its not conclusive. Other stories Ethan used and other conclusions he came to follow a similar pattern. I almost have to respect the self-confidence required to be so confident in such a fringe viewpoint.

Ethan Muse @emuse1955

24 hours ago

The EARLIEST ACCOUNT that the Smith family gave of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the golden plates (i.e, the source text for the Book of Mormon) involved a treasure guardian rather than an angel or a prophetic calling. There are overt indications within the account that this

34 17 172 23K 24

Thanks, hopefully you learned some things. I'd be very cautious of taking what Ethan said at face value. If the historic record is that obvious, why are non-LDS historians not picking up on it? And why are Ethan's fellow Catholics not using the same arguments he's using? It's because he strains the data and then adds in a few assumptions to get it to say what he wants.

@Snaggle97776422 @ThoughtfulSaint But to summarize it you have to know it. Ethan, as the person with the burden of proof on a topic about the Book of Mormon, and as the person who proposed the topic, should have made himself an expert on that topic rather than relying on others.

Very true, detecting demonic origin is more important than demonic influence or motive. But of course what is of demonic origin is highly subjective. Ethan brought a lot of Catholic superstitions into his reasoning and treated them as fact. Meanwhile Smith and his family and many people in their surroundings had no concept of the standards he was using. Which means that demonic activity would be completely invisible to them, which would defeat Ethan's claim that God will make people able to detect demonic activity.