These two kids remind me of me when I was on my mission... Smug, haughty and full of myself, willing to contort the message to prove how smart I thought I was.

I find the two Mormon presenters very disconcerting. They should just slow down and stop the strange voices. If they really have a case, why not just present it properly?

This is why I love your channel. You are humble and actually point out the correct answers weather they benefit a Mormon or a non Mormon. The attitude that these boys have makes me cringe! When I was a Mormon I would have been embarrassed to see how narcissistic and crude they are. To put a picture of John Dehlin’s face on satan makes me sick to my stomach. Another great video! I’m trying to watch them all 👍☺️

Their condescension is downright rude. People watching fair Mormon are often looking to find truth and on the brink of leaving the church. I think their attitude is only helping people leave. Thanks, Nemo. You do a great job zeroing in on the argument and cutting through all their fluff they use to distract from the main point.

"Joseph saw God...deal with it" is just so mature and lends credibility to the apologist who said it.

Honestly they don't need to be smacked down. They smack themselves down.

Thanks for smacking down these videos. Kwaku’s logic is so flawed and we need videos like these to inform people.

Can't believe I used to look to Kwakus videos for answers..... God I feel dumb

Great work. BTW, "revival" is a term of art in Christianity. They're not merely a general increase in religiosity over a period of time. Revivals are specific types of meetings which actually have definable beginnings and endings. To put Kwaku's argument in Mormon terms: "My opponent argues that no endowments were done on the Sunday in question. How absurd! The endowments of god can be given on any day! It's not like they were endowed on Thursday and the next day went and drank barely beer." FAIR plays a shell game with the definition by intentionally swapping the CES Letter's (and the church history's) term of art definition with the colloquial definition--hoping no one notices. It shows either a remarkable ignorance or gross cynicism.

These guys are annoying. If I were to see The Lord and his Son I would of remembered that. I would not of changed it several times. The first vision account makes me question the whole thing...

Loving watching these!! You paint a super clear picture of what the CES Letter is ACTUALLY saying. Thank you!

These two are something else, and I’m glad FAIR took the videos down. I am an active member, and was bothered by their delivery and their manipulation of the information. Interesting note from Greg Prince, D&C 20 is the first written account of the first vision, in verse 5 which speaks of the remission of the “first elder’s” sins (Joseph Smith), this correlates with the reason Joseph went to the grove in the 1832 account, to receive a remission of his sins, not to find out what church was true. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and level headedness of your response to these videos!

Can't wait for Kwaku to leave the LDS faith. He's showing signs that he really doesn't believe it's true.

There are so many issues with the first vision account that the church felt the need to omit for decades upon decades until the age of internet came into play. These guys do the history no justice, and their strawman explanations only leave more confusion and doubt as to how to handle these issues (which quite frankly I believe is their motive). You covered pivotal points, and this is what ppl need to hear, the truth. Keep up the great work. My only small bit of crtitque overall is the audio. Mic Audio seems a tad muffled or not sharp or clear, I had a little trouble hearing you, or maybe I need to clean my ears lol.

Nice work, it's good how concise you are with your points and that you always point out what type of argument they're using :)

Its also rather interesting to align the elements of the first vision accounts in a historical perspective. One of the most interesting is that before the changes were made to the Book of Mormon to go from Trinitarian to a 3 person godhead the accounts did not include the father and the son, but the account after the change was made does include two personages... Interesting. They also make the claim that a con man gets his story straight and never varies, do they have anything to back this claim up? They also fail to mention that police watch to see if a story gets more elaborate over time, since the elaborations indicate a made up story. look at the level of detail from the first vision as time goes on. It goes from vague to very detailed.

I can't believe the Mormon Church indirectly pays these two to do this. This is embarrassing.

It’s a good thing you did these fact check videos because fair has deleted these ridiculous videos from their channel.

I’ve head two holes in one. I may choose to leave out specific details when I tell the stories about them BUT the primary facts in those details never change, NEVER! The course, hole length, club I used, witnesses present, etc are always the same. The details I choose to leave out depend on the setting but they never contradict each other or become more gandiose over time. There is a difference between leaving out details and changing them.

If JS was illiterate, how was he reading the Bible when he was 14?

been getting a lot of your fact checking videos on my recommended lately and every single time it always strikes me how your responses are well thought-out and calm and logical but their arguments are really, uh, comedic and childish is the first descriptor that comes to mind? your fact checking is fantastic and I love these videos, even if the videos that you're responding to make me cringe a little bit lol.

Thanks for your videos dealing with FACTS that can be found through documentation, and not hair-brained emotional gaslighting. As always, very well done!

Yeah! Excusing the 1832 account's inconvenient discrepancies by saying that it wasn't meant to be a declarative statement on church history is absolutely abhorrent. There are fewer ways in which an apologist could downplay the alleged significance of that event more in Joseph's mind than by saying that! Absolute sleaze! Having been written in private, Joseph has ZERO incentive to leave any details out. There's no audience he may want to modify his experience for, as apologists will argue for other accounts (which is an absurd argument for them to make in and of itself since the 1838 account literally has him documenting being hated and persecuted for having seen a trinity-falsifying vision). And what's more, the fact that he was writing this down _in a journal_ means he was writing it _for the express purpose_ of remembering the event! When people write something in a personal journal, they take special interest in being accurate and comprehensive in their writing of a subject or event. Not only does Joseph has ZERO incentive to leave anything out, he would actually have incentive _to be thorough_ in his recounting! If anything, it's the 1832 account that we should look to for his personal beliefs about the experience! This issue gets me so pissed off when I hear apologists try to weasel their way around why the 1832 account doesn't correspond with the 1838/1842 account. It's just really bad. Really poor, sleazy argumentation in my opinion. edit: Fair mormon needs to get rid of that argument _real quick_ because it could do more damage to their cause than benefit.

I really want to copy their video but put a large banner underneath scrolling “ if you give up all your free time and give the church 10% of your paycheck these two will be your spiritual guides”

Fact checking can be laborious, but glad you did it.

I can't stand these two, find it hard to watch...great job on showing them up...

Contradicting accounts by the same person of one of the most important events of all time is rightfully troublesome. The gospels were written by four different people who would reasonably have experienced the same event differently. That’s normal and shouldn’t even be part of their argument. But if someone told different stories about the same event to a police officer, a lawyer, and a judge they would not be seen as a credible witness and their accounts would rightfully be scrutinized or dismissed.

Nemo, you are very classy. Good for you and for showing how annoying those defenders are.

There were other people around 1820 who also claimed to have divine visions of various kinds. In some cases angels appeared while in others God or Jesus appeared.

Breath of fresh air - keep the videos coming and keep up the good work

Thanks Nemo. Yours is very humble, articulate, and logical analysis of a very childish presentation of church history. What they present is more of a clown show, really. Always appreciate your presentations. They're helping me deconstruct the mormon narrative I grew up with, looking at the other side of the coin.

What’s funny is there’s an easy counter argument to the first vision just not mentioning god the father. Go look at the Joseph smith papers, in the account the being says “Joseph …” then the same being goes on to say “I was crucified” soooo is it god our father or Jesus Christ talking? Unless we are Jesus’s children? But that conflicts Mormon theology that he was our brother. It’s blatantly obvious that Joseph Smith was talking about seeing one being in the first account and changed it to two. This was a huge issue for me when I realized it.

You seem to be talking really fast. Is it because they’re speaking fast? Combine your speed and some distortion in the sound, I found it difficult to follow you. When people speak so fast, it feels like they’re trying to gloss over the details with hopes the listener won’t notice discrepancies in the narrative. Your comments are so concise, they are worth slowing down so people can follow. I really appreciate your perspective.

Great job!

Thre is nothing wrong with accepting money. We all deserve to live. However, when it is apparent that these two are stretching logic, it is likely they don't even believe what they are saying, at least in part because of the money.

Kwaku is one of the most arrogant, aggressive, abrasive young "men" I've had the misfortune of witnessing "attempting" to defend Mormonism. He tries to use bullying tactics in lieu of factual evidence. I saw him try to debate Dr white & Jeff Durbin using these same, lame, methods. The result being he made a complete fool of himself, just as he did here!!!

Very offended by putting John Dehlin's face on Satan statue. Not cool, guys. Very low class

Another problem with the first vision is the claim that it proves God and Jesus had bodies of flesh and bone. Yet, JS never touched them.

Never understood the loss of faith over the First Vision accounts. Blows my mind. How does this bother people? I'm just as skeptical as the next guy, but I can't imagine why this freaks people out so much.

Thank you nemo, execellent video.

Errors, contradictions and omissions being classed as proof of authenticity is HILARIOUS. Is this normal for Mormons and/or other religious groups? Because from an atheist's perspective that sounds insane.

Good video. Kwaku appeared in an ep of Apologia Studios/Church

I suppose somebody has to counter FairMormon's "This is the Show" caricatures. Personally, I find them flippant and sacriligious. Can't think of a teen I know who would be positively impressed...

Those guys were totally cringe

thank you and keep up the great work!

Do young people in the church really respond positively to these guys? They're HEAVILY scripted, while trying to appear hip and spontaneous.

#Mormons #LDSChurch

Does anyone know if Kwaku gets paid by the church, or is indeed a human and not a bot?

I'm Gay.

Kwaku may not have a girlfriend, but he has a boyfriend! Not that there's anything wrong with that unless you're a believing mormon!

Yes apologists love to bring up the newspaper

Wow, for a script that was worked on... it's pathetic.

Kwaku is a theologian like Trump is a nuclear physicist.

Really rubbish audio.

What are your thoughts on Joseph Smith Nemo? You think he was a conman?

The Bible says the father of lies is Satan. Joseph Smith Jr. learned from the best! His character speaks for itself.

These two deny history. And remind me of Marshall Applegates followers.

These guys are ridiculous!😫

11:47 _"Just because a written recognition of it doesn't exist, doesn't mean they don't know."_ Interesting logic there. Just because a written acknowledgement of Joseph having sex with his wives doesn't exist, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is just sad apologetics.

Jesus has not returned yet anyone yet. The bible says what will happen. It will be in Jerusalem, not in America. George fox ( the quacker founder had a similar story ). So did Muhammad.

Checkout the four people who don't like to be fact checked.

These guys are so cringy.

These guys are smug patronising and immature...why do you behave in an hysterical way..chill out..

This whole work is indeed a fraud. I think the Hinkster knew exactly what he was saying. Well played Hinkley. Well played.

Wow the just made out john as the devil