The Shocking IGNORANCE About Mormonism: It’s Worse Than You Think (Ft Luke Hanson)

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The danger of quoting the Mishnah and the Talmud is that they are a bunch of Jewish authorities arguing throughout it. Saying the Mishnah says or the Talmud says with one quote can lead to all kinds of aberrant takes on Judaism. A special credit to one of my college professors who taught me that anyone using a Mishnah or Talmud quote to bash Jews is treating it like a scriptural proof-text which is not how the Jews used them.

The Mishnah Sanhedrin quote is attributed to a specific rabbi (Akiva) and is not in any way binding.

The Talmud quote is from an argument primarily on whether you can use copies of the Torah created by a Gentile or heretic or that was owned by a either at some point.

*Thumbs through the book*, Margaret Barker references the Mishnah to show a post-Christian 50ish AD idea of a Jewish canon and that they had other outside books and she seems to claim the Talmud is a reference of the destruction of such books, "the books of the minim, even if containing verse of scripture, were to be destroyed, and any scroll copied by the minim had to be destroyed, even if it contained the Name [n42: b. Gitt 45b]" (Barker, The Great High Priest, pg 304). 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

*Thumbs through the book*, Margaret Barker references the Mishnah to show a post-Christian 50ish AD idea of a Jewish canon and that they had other outside books and she seems to claim the Talmud is a reference of the destruction of such books, "the books of the minim, even if containing verse of scripture, were to be destroyed, and any scroll copied by the minim had to be destroyed, even if it contained the Name [n42: b. Gitt 45b]" (Barker, The Great High Priest, pg 304). 

The books of the minim were the books of Jewish heretics. Mostly those who denied the oral Torah (what would be the Mishnah and the Talmud) and the resurrection. This would be the Sadducees and other sects like them. The Sadducees were (I am generalizing a bit here) Torah only zealots. They denied the existence of spirits. They didn’t like 1 Enoch or messianism in general. Taking this to mean the Jews were purging their libraries of stuff about the Watchers by targeting the Sadducees just doesn’t make sense. The Sadducees also really didn’t like the Essenes.

The ideas of the Mishnah were mostly transmitted orally and again you can’t take the rabbinical opinions as authoritative even then. The Mishnah was only written down because the temple was lost and the Roman purge of a lot of the Jewish religious leadership and there was a fear of a kind of religious genocide if they didn’t start writing this stuff down. They are trying to survive, not doing mass redactions of their existing writings.

Edit: Also, Enoch wasn’t particularly well loved or accepted and there is a much more obvious reason the Jewish leadership liked it less at the time. The wars against the Romans had an apocalyptic character. You had people marching to war thinking that God and/or the messiah would save them and it was getting people killed en masse. Is it any wonder the Rabbis were fed up with apocalyptic literature watching the results of it? Why worry about the Christians when there is a more obvious reason to be cool towards these kinds of texts?

A similar thing happened with Jewish Kabbalah after Sabbatai Zevi had his big messianic moment in the 17th century with some of the Jewish leadership trying to restrict study of the Kabbalah to prevent this kind of dangerous messianic fervor.

Edited May 6, 2025 by The Nehor

[Pyreaux]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The books of the minim were the books of Jewish heretics. Mostly those who denied the oral Torah (what would be the Mishnah and the Talmud) and the resurrection. This would be the Sadducees and other sects like them. The Sadducees were (I am generalizing a bit here) Torah only zealots. They denied the existence of spirits. They didn’t like 1 Enoch or messianism in general. Taking this to mean the Jews were purging their libraries of stuff about the Watchers by targeting the Sadducees just doesn’t make sense. The Sadducees also really didn’t like the Essenes.

The chapter's theme gets into the destruction of texts, it infers the Christians were the top heretics, she then gets into the Samaritan books near that time, how the Romans destroyed the Samaritan Temple because they wanted to build a fort, then the Jews destroyed all the Samaritan books, then hosted a celebration specifically for the destruction of those books. Then she gets into the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. 

She seems very adamant that First Enoch was getting suppressed, she said things like First Enoch was a major scripture, Qumran used to have 20 copies of it, 20 copies of Genesis, 6 Jeremiah, etc.

[Zosimus]

On 5/5/2025 at 10:26 AM, Pyreaux said:

I'm in the camp that many pseudepigrapha is older than "scholars" will admit. As Margaret Barker says, "They aren't being called frauds because they are frauds, they are calling them frauds because they don't like what it's telling them." The old Protestant claim that all the books in the Bible are older than the books outside of it is plainly false, Dead Sea Scrolls showed us there are other books alongside these, and these are the oldest we have. (1 Enoch, etc.)

I don't doubt that many are older. The problem is that most, a strong majority, of the texts that Barnes names to support his claims aren't older.

As I mentioned above, Barnes frequently mentions Jasher to prove his point that the Book of Mormon seems to agree with the apocrypha on details that aren't in the OT. One example, Joseph's coat of many colors being trampled. A detail that is found in Jasher and the Book of Mormon and not the OT. But, Jasher was published in 1828, two years before the Book of Mormon and Barnes directly states in his book that the publication of a "lost book" of Jasher caused enough of a stir in the early Church that Joseph Smith commented on it in December of 1830.

Which explanation is more plausible?

• The Book of Mormon (published 1830) and the Book of Jasher (published 1828) both draw on a pre-OT tradition detailing Joseph's trampled coat, or
• Joseph Smith was familiar with the contents of the 1828 Book of Jasher, and had even discussed the text with early Saints the year the Book of Mormon was published

Barnes states in his book that both these explanations are true 

[Zosimus]

On 5/5/2025 at 9:14 PM, Nofear said:

Zosimus, before I can respond to a cfr, might you clarify what exactly you understand my claim to be?

It was more a rhetorical CFR for Barnes, who isn't here to respond so I'm not expecting you to respond to it. But if you have some interactions with him, my question is: How could a medieval text of unknown provenance that was published in 1828 and was, according to Barnes, known to Joseph Smith as early as December 1830 be "definitely" a candidate for a text that was on the brass plates?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

One example, Joseph's coat of many colors being trampled.

Do you mean Alma 46?  The way I read it is the people tore off their clothes (outer coat/shirt), which is described with “rending” and then threw their “garments” before Captain Moroni to be trod upon or trampled as refuse if they broke the covenant.  The following verse speaks of Joseph’s coat as having been “ rent”, not trampled or trodded upon.  So the first part of what happened to their garments happened with Joseph’s coat, but not necessarily the second.

Quote

21 And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God; or, in other words, if they should transgress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ashamed to take upon them the name of Christ, the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments.

22 Now this was the covenant which they made, and they casttheir garments at the feet of Moroni, saying: We covenantwith our God, that we shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression; yea, he may cast us at the feet of our enemies, even as we have cast our garments at thy feet to be trodden under foot, if we shall fall into transgression.

23 Moroni said unto them: Behold, we are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; yea, we are a remnant of the seed of Joseph, whose coat was rent by his brethren into many pieces; yea, and now behold, let us remember to keep the commandments of God, or our garments shall be rent by our brethren, and we be cast into prison, or be sold, or be slain.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/46?lang=eng

The Bible has Jacob assuming Joseph has been torn to pieces, so it is reasonable to assume the coat was not only dipped in blood, but torn up.  Joseph doesn’t have to go to Jasher to get that idea imo.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 37&version=NIV

Edited May 7, 2025 by Calm

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Bible has Jacob assuming Joseph has been torn to pieces, so it is reasonable to assume the coat was not only dipped in blood, but torn up.  Joseph doesn’t have to go to Jasher to get that idea imo.

TBH I'm not so familiar with the apologetics on this, but this is pretty close to how Barnes presents it in his book:

Book of Mormon Evidence: Traditions about Joseph’s Garment

[talltimber]

Islam and Mormonism are radically different.  Most critically, Mormonism is totally against all unjust aggression and teaches freedom of choice for all. And that only constitutional government is accepted by God. (D&C 98)  Political Islam has a long history of being the aggressor and enslaving others -- forcing the kafir into oppressive sharia law against their will.

Parallels between the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Joseph Smith:

★ Both claimed they had a vision in which they saw and spoke with the resurrected Jesus.
★ Neither were part of the original 12 Apostles that were witnesses of Christ. And yet both claimed they have been called by Jesus to be Apostles for him.
★ Both spent the rest of their life witnessing that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior of the world.
★ Both claimed that the gospel and teaching they taught were not taught to them by men but was given to them by ***revelation***.
★ So they both taught the ***same*** type of gospel: a gospel they received by revelation, and not from men without revelation teaching their traditions.
★ Both provided written records of the visions, revelations and teachings they were given.
★ Both of these written records have continued to be accepted as scripture and read by millions when other writings from the same time period are largely forgotten.
★ Both claimed that they were sent to build up the Church of Christ among the Gentiles. But both claimed to actually be Israelites. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin. Joseph of Ephraim.
★ Paul is accused by some unbelievers of having a different message than what is found in the four gospels. Joseph is accused by some unbelievers of having a different message than the New Testament.
★ Both were eventually martyrs because of their message that they never turned from.
★ And the teachings they gave and the organizations they started continue to increase long after they died.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, talltimber said:

Political Islam has a long history of being the aggressor and enslaving others -- forcing the kafir into oppressive sharia law against their will.

But it is not inherent to Islam as demonstrated by Indonesia, which has a Muslim majority (87%), but is officially secular without Sharia law, is democratic and pluralistic. has a free press and effective religious freedom.

Given the locations of the most oppressive Muslim countries, it seems more like a regional issue than a religious one.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Calm

[3DOP]

On 4/28/2025 at 6:17 PM, Calm said:

It is ridiculous to compare us to Islam because we believe God is an exalted human (however that occurred).  Islam would view that as pure blasphemy.  There is a bigger gap between the God of Islam and mankind than there is between man and the God of creedal Christianity as I understand it.  There is no Son of God (who is divine) who descended to redeem mankind or bridge that gao in Islam.  One of the core beliefs of Islam is in the unity and indivisibility, uniqueness of God. Humans cannot become partakers of the Divine Nature.  Do Christians really want to see themselves as close in belief to a faith that denies the divinity of Christ?

I am late to this thread. I watched the whole video tonight in October. A thought or two...I liked the serene and thoughtful presentation. 

Hi cal. Dave Waltz doesn't look at this site much anymore (nor do I, I might point him to it. We talk.). But both of us think there is a lot of value in comparing Islamic and LDS and Catholic claims together. I am uncomfortable with comparisons to be characterized as ridiculous. There are significant ways in which we are closer to Islam. Creation ex nihilo is big, I have seen a lot of posts on this forum which characterize that as ridiculous. To be fair, I wonder if that fuels some of the apparent Catholic favortism towards Islam. 

I am at odds with what most devout Catholics think the Catholic Church teaches, for accepting every baptism that uses the correct form (the form is the words used) except for the LDS.  

Why be confident that my Baptist baptism from a man who would vehemently deny that a Catholic should accept it? (There are some good arguments). I am conditionally baptised, but think my original baptism was probably valid. I would suggest that these norms should also apply to LDS baptisms. I hold that more non-Catholics should be conditionally baptised upon being received into the Church. Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians aure. But most Catholics, incliuding the hierarchy seem pretty ignorant of the wacky stuff that is taught in some Evangelical circles. Still, we can't repeat baptism. So I say the same for LDS. To say that every LDS baptism seems difficult to support. I am glad to be conditionally baptised. But I would hesiatate to say I was never baptised. It seems like I would feel the same way as an LDS.

I share my intellectual journey with hardly any living person except Dave.  In the 90's, after our conversions, our kids and my wife would make remarks about "Daddy's Church", whenever we would pass an LDS....I don't even know what you call it, a Stake?  It was a good joke. Anyway, one of your red brick buildings. Most of my fellow Catholics would think my interest in Islam in the early 90's coupled with an interest in your own faith would be ridiculous. I put out feelers rarely. I have one friend here in Kansas, a young fellow Catholic, under 40, who sees why I would have ever taken the LDS claims seriously.

I think we need to be patient with our fellow religionists regarding their ignorance of other faith claims. I think very few of your fellow LDS are well-informed about Catholic thought. As I approach my "golden years", I have a little bit of envy toward my fellows who have never seemed called to wrestle with the issues that separate us. All the camps have good people who try to follow Christ, and who adore, and praise, and thank Him, even while being ignorant of the nuances of other ways of Christian beliefs. God save us and make us One in Him, as He prayed.

Rory

Edited October 11, 2025 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

By the way...and maybe this is cleared up already. I need to read the rest of the thread. I figured that Ft. Luke Hanson was just a typo for Fr. (Father) Luke Hanson. Fort Luke Hanson? No big deal...but what else does "Ft." stand for?