What Mormonism is Hiding: My New Video

[Philo Sofee]

https://youtu.be/ycIJ6DIOwKI

Here I discuss Mormonism hiding an obvious blunder concerning the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Enjoy.

[consiglieri]

Looking forward to it, Herr Doktor!

[jlamothe]

Fascinating video. There's a lot in there to digest.

I can find only one place where I don't entirely agree. You said that the worst Laman and Lemuel did was "being rude". They were also reported to have physically assaulted Nephi on at least a couple occasions.

See: 1 Ne 3:28-29, 1 Ne 18:11-13

Nevertheless, great content overall.

[Philo Sofee]

Fascinating video. There's a lot in there to digest.

I can find only one place where I don't entirely agree. You said that the worst Laman and Lemuel did was "being rude". They were also reported to have physically assaulted Nephi on at least a couple occasions.

See: 1 Ne 3:28-29, 1 Ne 18:11-13

Nevertheless, great content overall.

Well... it was from Nephi's storytelling point of view they were said to have done that, so it can be questioned... he did have to have antagonists in order to create miracles out of his turban.

[Dr Moore]

Philo,

I watched your video. Glad to see you in such beautiful surroundings.

If I understand your argument, it's that much of what comprises the scriptures are, in fact, expressed beliefs, or philosophies, of men. I believe even apologists have tackled that issue, making "sense" out of scriptural contradictions by blaming them on the errors of men.

So my question is: if self-described prophets who lead the church today are fallible, and prophets speaking in the scriptures can also be fallible, where is the "pure truth" to be found?

Where I settle on that question today is that "pure truth" in LDS philosophy -- as in, absolute true doctrine which can never be revised or changed -- does not exist.

[Shulem]

You forgot to mention that Nephi became the first king, rather grudgingly, but nonetheless he became King Nephi I.

And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power.

And lest we forget, King Nephi was determined that his kingdom would continue to be ruled by earthly kings, behold King Nephi II:

Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings.

So why did it take so long for Joseph Smith to begin to write a little democracy into his novel? Why continue with king's when everyone knows that king's can cause a great deal of problems when one of them goes sour and rules with an iron fist? It took quite a bit of time before Smith wrote into his novel about how judges came to power and government looked more like a democracy.

QUESTION: If Nephi was so bloody righteous and inspired as he claimed he was, why didn't he establish a government founded upon democracy and set up judges and a system that would prevent a single man from having total control over both government and the military?

ANSWER: Because Nephi was a power mongering little weasel who treated his older brethren like dirt and convinced his dreamy dad into believing him to be the apparent heir of their family line.

"Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would." (Jacob 1;11

I'll bet you anything that Joseph Smith would have preferred to use the name "Joseph" instead of "Nephi" but had he done so it would have been obvious that Smith was simply projecting himself into his novel. In other words, Nephi *was* Joseph Smith!

How do you like them apples, Philo? Aren't I something else?

[Moksha]

Why continue with kings when everyone knows that kings can cause many problems when one of them goes sour and rules with an iron fist?

Perhaps Nephi looked into the future and saw Donald Trump.

[Philo Sofee]

You forgot to mention that Nephi became the first king, rather grudgingly, but nonetheless he became King Nephi I.

And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power.

And lest we forget, King Nephi was determined that his kingdom would continue to be ruled by earthly kings, behold King Nephi II:

Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings.

So why did it take so long for Joseph Smith to begin to write a little democracy into his novel? Why continue with king's when everyone knows that king's can cause a great deal of problems when one of them goes sour and rules with an iron fist? It took quite a bit of time before Smith wrote into his novel about how judges came to power and government looked more like a democracy.

QUESTION: If Nephi was so bloody righteous and inspired as he claimed he was, why didn't he establish a government founded upon democracy and set up judges and a system that would prevent a single man from having total control over both government and the military?

ANSWER: Because Nephi was a power mongering little weasel who treated his older brethren like dirt and convinced his dreamy dad into believing him to be the apparent heir of their family line.

"Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would." (Jacob 1;11

I'll bet you anything that Joseph Smith would have preferred to use the name "Joseph" instead of "Nephi" but had he done so it would have been obvious that Smith was simply projecting himself into his novel. In other words, Nephi *was* Joseph Smith!

How do you like them apples, Philo? Aren't I something else?

OMG! You found the King's name!!!! Oh wait, wrong book.

[Philo Sofee]

Philo,

I watched your video. Glad to see you in such beautiful surroundings.

If I understand your argument, it's that much of what comprises the scriptures are, in fact, expressed beliefs, or philosophies, of men. I believe even apologists have tackled that issue, making "sense" out of scriptural contradictions by blaming them on the errors of men.

So my question is: if self-described prophets who lead the church today are fallible, and prophets speaking in the scriptures can also be fallible, where is the "pure truth" to be found?

Where I settle on that question today is that "pure truth" in LDS philosophy -- as in, absolute true doctrine which can never be revised or changed -- does not exist.

To quote an old codger many of us know, "exactly right!"

[consiglieri]

Loved your hiding podcast!

Quick question—If Moroni Christianized the Jaredite narrative, might Joseph have done the same thing with the Nephite narrative?

Assuming Hardy is correct on this, is Joseph giving us a peek behind the curtain?