u/brickwallonly, u/elx_xle, u/HATTORIHANZOSW0RD

The Book of Mormon is a central scripture for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon Church). Members view it as holy scripture alongside the Bible, believing it to be another testament of Jesus Christ.

According to LDS beliefs, the book is a translation of ancient records written by prophets on golden plates in the Americas. It details the history of several groups of people who migrated from ancient Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere, covering a period from roughly 600 BCE to 421 CE. Its central narrative describes Jesus Christ appearing to these ancient peoples in the Americas after His resurrection.

No archaeological discoveries have been independently and conclusively identified as evidence for the specific peoples, cities, battles, or events described in the Book of Mormon.

DNA studies trace Native American ancestry overwhelmingly to East and Northeast Asia, not the ancient Near East. This contradicts the long-standing LDS teaching (once in the book’s introduction) that Lamanites were the “principal ancestors” of Native Americans; the church changed that wording in 2006 to “among the ancestors.” Today's Mormons disagree with Smith because of DNA genetics.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter-day Saint movement, first published the text in 1830 in Palmyra, New York. Smith said he translated the book through divine inspiration, using a pair of seer stones and with help from the angel Moroni.

Witness accounts said Smith dictated much of it with his face in a hat over a seer stone, often with the plates covered or set aside, which raises the question of what the plates were for. Thousands of changes have been made since 1830. Most are grammar and spelling, but some are doctrinal; for example, 1 Nephi 11 calling Mary “the mother of God” became “the mother of the Son of God.”
The book ties dark skin to a divine curse on the Lamanites, which critics see as reflecting its era’s racial assumptions.

The Book of Mormon has no accepted archaeological support in the Americas, and some of its contents conflict with archaeological findings.

Appendix: Well-known Mormons

Henry Eyring (1901–1981) was a theoretical chemist who developed transition state theory, a foundation of chemical kinetics.

Clayton Christensen (1952–2020) was a Harvard Business School professor whose theory of “disruptive innovation” is an influential idea in modern business.

Richard G. Scott (1928–2015), a nuclear engineer, helped develop nuclear propulsion systems for submarines. Later became a senior LDS Church leader, serving in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Donny Osmond (1957–) and Marie Osmond (1959–) were American singers, actors, and television personalities.

Russell M. Nelson (1924–2025), a cardiothoracic surgeon, helped develop and clinically use heart-lung machines. Later became president of the LDS Church in 2018.

Mitt Romney (1947–) was a former governor of Massachusetts, a U.S. senator from Utah, and the Republican presidential nominee in 2012.

The Mormon movement began in New York in 1830 under Joseph Smith. Its followers subsequently relocated several times because of religious persecution, hostility from neighboring communities, and violent conflicts. 70,000 Mormon pioneers migrated to Utah between 1847 and 1869. Today, half of Utah adults identify as Mormon.

u/ShareStrict973, u/NaStK14, u/Southern-Effect3214

Mk 1:

15 "Repent and believe in the gospel."

Strong's Greek: 3340. μετανοέω (metanoeó) — 34 Occurrences

Mt 3:

2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Lk 13:

3 “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

All three synoptic Gospels recorded Jesus using the word G3340-repent. John didn't use G3340 in his Gospel, but the concept was there.

Jn 5:

14 “Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you”.

8:

11 “Go, and from now on sin no more”.

John didn't shy away from telling people not to sin, even though it came from Jesus.

24 "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

John's concept of believe carried a nuance of repent.

πιστεύω (G4100) appeared 11 times in Matthew, 14 in Mark, 9 in Luke, and 98 in John. John did use the word repent 12 times in Revelation.

Rv 2:

5 "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

John recognized the importance of repentance, as did the other Gospel writers.

Why didn't John ever speak of repentance in the Gospel of John?

John emphasized faith rather than repentance. He understood repentance as implicit in genuine faith.

u/Appropriate_Sweet204, u/weller79, u/pikkdogs

Mt 26:

24 “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it,

Strong's Greek: 5590. ψυχή (psuché) — 104 Occurrences

BDAG:
① life on earth in its animating aspect making bodily function possible.

If you care only about saving your biological life, you will lose your soul. If you put saving your biological life ahead of Christ, you will lose your life before God.

but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

If you lose your biological life because of Christ, you will find your soul. Losing one’s life for Christ often means martyrdom.

26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?”

Same Greek lemma. BDAG:
② seat and center of the inner human life in its many and varied aspects, soul.

I.e., your personhood.

If you prioritize gain in this world over Christ, you will lose your soul-personhood (i.e., eternal life).

What does it mean to give up your life for Jesus's sake?

We can apply Jesus' saying to everyday events. It happens in small ways frequently. We don't put his will ahead of our plans. We want to be seen as right or in control. When we don't have them, we feel we have lost something. In this passage, Jesus promised that nothing truly surrendered to Christ is ever lost. To give up your life for Jesus' sake means to surrender your claim to live primarily for yourself and instead make following Jesus your highest priority, even when doing so requires suffering, sacrifice, or death.

Does Jesus require literal death?

Not of every disciple.

Joseph Smith (1805–1844), the founder of Mormonism, was killed by an armed mob on June 27, 1844, at Carthage Jail in Illinois. He was 38 years old.

Immediate events leading to his death:

1. Polygamy: Smith secretly practiced plural marriage, which created controversy both inside and outside the Mormon community.

2. Suppression of a newspaper: On June 7, 1844, the Nauvoo Expositor published its first issue, criticizing Smith's polygamy and political and religious authority.

3. Destruction of the printing press: Smith, then mayor of Nauvoo, and the city council ordered the newspaper's press destroyed on June 10. This intensified public outrage and led to criminal charges.

4. Arrest: Smith and his brother Hyrum surrendered to authorities in Carthage, Illinois, on June 24. They were subsequently held on charges including treason against Illinois.

How was he killed?

On June 27, 1844, approximately 100–200 armed men attacked Carthage Jail. Hyrum Smith was shot and killed. Joseph Smith defended himself with a pistol smuggled into the jail. Smith fired several shots toward the attackers.

He was subsequently shot while attempting to escape through a second-floor window and fell to the ground. He died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Was Joseph Smith a martyr?

From the Mormon perspective: Yes. Latter-day Saints regard Smith as a prophet murdered because of his religious mission. Smith did not die without resisting. He fired a pistol at the attackers before being killed.

His death created a succession crisis that eventually resulted in Brigham Young leading the largest group of Mormons to Utah in 1847.

u/KassVII, u/fl4nnel, u/eveninarmageddon

Genesis 2:

18 It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. …
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

The Bible recognizes marriage as good, but it does not promise marriage to everyone who desires it.

Psalm 37:

3 Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness. 4 Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart. 5 Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act.

People often read it as a promise to grant whatever we want, but the context is about trusting God rather than envying the wicked.

1 Corinthians 7:

2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. …
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul treated strong, persistent desire as a sign that someone should pursue marriage.

None of the above promised that God would provide a spouse for everyone who desires one.

I had a strong desire to get a wife. This was what I practiced. It worked :)

Will the desire to get married always be fulfilled?

No. However, if you work on it, God may grant you a spouse.

Dr. Kevin Zadai is a Christian minister, author, and online media personality. He holds a Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) degree from Primus University.

He said:

I went up into my room. I was in there studying, praying from the Heavenly Realms book. I was writing that, and a wind came through, but no windows were open.

Zadai claimed a supernatural encounter that could not be independently verified.

I know that there are at least three angels in this room. Now that is the absolute truth. Now, people out there, the haters, are going to think I'm crazy for talking about this this way.

People who didn't believe him were haters. That's an unwarranted characterization of skeptics. Disbelief does not entail hatred.

There's a lot of people, including ex-presidents, are going to jail

for stealing elections, covering up the truth, etc. That's just a conspiracy theory.

He said:

How many babies have died today? Well, God didn't have anything to do with that.

God let it happen. “Not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father” (Matthew 10:29). Verse 31 adds, “you are of more value than many sparrows.”

How many people that I would love to have as daughters have just stopped at a rest area and been kidnapped by a trucker?

Zadai offered no statistics establishing how frequently truckers kidnap women at roadside rest areas. His emotionally charged hypothetical doesn't show how prevalent such crimes are.

Now, I'm not saying truckers are bad, but this is how it goes.

He was speaking from both sides of his mouth.

I would never stop at a roadside rest. I would never allow my wife to go in by herself into anywhere because these things are organized crime.

Never, never, never. He needed to take a Tylenol and show us the statistics.

​

Blood doesn't guarantee loyalty. Kind words don't guarantee sincerity.

Even Jesus was betrayed by someone who walked beside Him.

Love people. Pay attention to their actions. Ask God for wisdom.

SAVE THIS AS A REMINDER.

If the Gospels of Jesus' Earthly Ministry are for the Jews only, a lot of Christians will not be able to defend their doctrines. For example, I have not found in Scripture that Jesus' directly preached to the Gentiles, nor did the 12 Apostles. There are also verses to support this theory.

If the comments below provide substantial evidence, what are the subjects, doctrines et cetera that are directly impacted?

A cathedral is not necessarily a Roman Catholic building. The word cathedral comes from the Greek καθέδρα (kathedra), meaning "seat" or "chair." A cathedral is the principal church in a bishop's diocese and contains the bishop's official seat.

St. Volodymyr Cathedral of Toronto is celebrating its 100th anniversary in 2026. I attended this morning's service, led by Bishop Andriy.

No, this is not Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former comedian who became president of Ukraine in 2019. St. Volodymyr the Great was the ruler of Kyivan Rus' who introduced Christianity as the state religion in 988 CE under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

• Male congregants: Remove hats, caps, and other head coverings.
• Priests: May wear traditional clerical headgear, such as a kamilavka, at prescribed times.
• Bishops: May wear a mitre during certain parts of the Divine Liturgy.
• Women: Traditionally may cover their heads with scarves, although this is not universally required.

Insert hats

The liturgy does not use musical instruments. The music is entirely vocal:

• Choir singing: Often in four-part harmony (soprano, alto, tenor, bass).
• Priests chanting: Scripture readings, prayers, and liturgical responses.
• Congregational singing: Responses and hymns, depending on local practice.

The choir was behind us above on the 2nd-floor balcony. The acoustics were great.

But then, Psalm 150:

3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp!
4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe!
5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!

Insert layout

In Orthodox terminology, altar refers to the entire sanctuary behind the iconostasis. At one point, the central Royal Doors were opened, allowing the congregation to see into the altar.

The bishop, priests, deacons, and authorized male altar servers may enter the altar, but ordinary congregants may not.

1 Peter 2:

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Peter thought believers were priests.

Hebrews 10:

19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh.

Orthodox Christians interpret this as spiritual access to God through Christ, not physical access to the church's altar.

In any case, it was an enjoyable experience this morning. Great job!

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Can we explain why God allows the Israelites to enslave other ppl and marry them without consent?

Microevolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or shifts in beak size in finches. Macroevolution is the larger-scale pattern: the origin of new species, new body plans, and major groups. The basic mechanisms are the same. Macroevolution is what accumulated microevolution looks like over long timescales, plus the effects of things like mass extinctions and ecological opportunity.

Macroevolution has occurred. The evidence is strong enough that evolutionary biologists regard it as an established scientific conclusion. However, some questions about evolutionary developmental mechanisms remain unresolved.

Prof James Tour is an organic chemist and Christian speaker. He believed in microevolution and speciation, but not yet macroevolution.

Pastor Eric Huffman asked Dr Tour an important question:

What would you need to see in the paper or the flask or whatever to satisfy you?

Tour replied:

A body plan change. It is not just speciation. It is not just a species change. Because people will say species change. No, there are some plants that will for some unknown reason double their genome. That's a new species now. So we already have examples of new species. I'm saying a body plan change. That plant stays a plant. The bacterium stays a bacterium. The mouse stays a mouse. Yeah. You have to have a body plan change. You have to have. Invertebrate to vertebrate or something similar to that. Yes, yes. Or where, for example, it didn't have an optical system and all of a sudden it has eyes. It has an optical system. That's a body plan change. Right. Didn't have eyes and now it has eyes. Didn't have ears and now it has ears.

Tour gave examples of body plan change but he didn't a general operational definition.

The interviewer asked another important question:

Feathers? Does that apply? That's what I always heard in science class growing up is that there are evidences of feathers developing over.

That stumped Tour a bit:

I'm not sure that that qualifies as a body plan change. You would have to speak to someone more expert than that.

At least he deferred to experts. If the evolution of feathers does not qualify, what does? He continued:

And so all these things that you see from the primordial soup, something comes out of the pond and that changes and you have a whale turns into a cow. I mean, nobody's ever seen such a thing. Nobody knows how.

Here is the latest paper supporting macroevolution:

A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan, Nature, volume 440, pages 757–763 (2006.4.6), abstract:

The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes. Here we report the discovery of a well-preserved species of fossil sarcopterygian fish from the Late Devonian of Arctic Canada that represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose. Although the body scales, fin rays, lower jaw and palate are comparable to those in more primitive sarcopterygians, the new species also has a shortened skull roof, a modified ear region, a mobile neck, a functional wrist joint, and other features that presage tetrapod conditions. The morphological features and geological setting of this new animal are suggestive of life in shallow-water, marginal and subaerial habitats.

Researchers published evidence of a roughly 375-million-year-old fish with features intermediate between fish and terrestrial tetrapods, including a mobile neck and limb-like structures within its fins.

Is macroevolution true?

I think so.

u/investorpooh

Augustine of Hippo lived from 354 to 430 CE.

Chris White, The Deformation: Examining Reformation Theology Through The Lens of the Early Church (2025):

Chapter 1: The legacy of Augustine For the first three centuries of church history, Christians were in near unanimous agreement about the basics of how salvation worked.

That's oversimplification. Yes, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Athanasius agreed that salvation comes through Christ’s death and resurrection. On the other hand, Marcionites understood salvation as liberation from the material world. Gnosticism flourished from the 2nd to the 4th centuries CE. They were deemed heretical, but they were part of the landscape.

But in the early 400s, something significantly changed which was largely the result of the teachings of one man, Augustine of Hippo. He is without question the most influential human figure in Christianity other than the apostles themselves. As far as Roman Catholicism goes, he invented or strongly gave his authority to doctrines like Mary being sinless,

That’s an overstatement. Augustine didn't invent the doctrine of Mary being sinless. He defended Mary's special exemption when discussing sin, but did not formulate the later Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

infant baptism,

No, Augustine didn't invent infant baptism according to Roman Catholicism. Cyprian's Letter 64, written around AD 253, discusses whether infants should be baptized before the eighth day. The bishops concluded that baptism should not be delayed. The Catechism (CCC 1252) calls infant baptism an immemorial tradition attested from the second century and says the Church has always understood it as apostolic.

Yes, Augustine strongly supported infant baptism.

the idea that sex even within marriage is sinful,

Augustine was nuanced on this issue. He taught that marital sex is good.

Augustine on Sexual and Conjugal Morality: "He taught that sexual intercourse is only legitimate for the purpose of having children (concubitus propter solam procreationem). Again, Augustine understood that violating this was a 'minor' sin that could be forgiven by prayer or by acts of charity. But later, more rigorous authors interpreted it much more strongly."

White's language is too loose and lacks theological precision. He is misleading listeners.

u/JuliusDalum, u/MECH_Orzel, u/friedtuna76

Ps 82:

1 God [H430 Elohim] has taken his place in the divine assembly; in the midst of the gods [elohim] he holds judgment:

Elohim judged the elohim in a divine assembly. God is the judge of judges, God of gods.

2 “How long will you** judge** unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

These elohim were judges. They judged humans. Some think they themselves were humans. They favored the wicked people. Label them E2.

3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

E2 didn't do right.

5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

E2 shook the foundations of right and wrong.

6 I said, “You are gods [elohim],

'I' referred to the presiding judge, the unique Elohim-God; 'gods' were plural elohim referring to the E2-gods-judges.

sons of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”

I think E2 were heavenly beings.

The bad sons of the Most High would fall from heaven and eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire (Re 19:20).

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

God would arise to take over all judgments directly. He judges the elohim; he judges the earth. He judges the judges. He judges the E2-gods.

Who were these sons of the Most High?

They were heavenly beings who exercised subordinate authority under the Almighty God. Unfortunately, these members of God's heavenly council failed to uphold justice. They didn't do their jobs properly.

Were they angels?

I think so, although Psalm 82 did not explicitly call them angels.

See also * Who were members of the divine council?

u/Kapandaria

New King James Version, Is 53:

10a Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him.

Oxford: 1. ​a blue, brown or purple mark that appears on the skin after somebody has fallen, been hit, etc. 2. a mark on a fruit or vegetable where it is damaged

Berean Standard Bible:

Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush Him

Strong's Hebrew: 1792. דָּכָא (daka) — 18 Occurrences

HALOT: to crush, to beat

HALOT didn't list 'bruise' as a possible meaning.

On Biblehub, 11 versions used 'bruise'; 23 used 'crush'.

NKJV, Job 4:

17 ‘Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?
18 If He puts no trust in His servants, If He charges His angels with error,
19 How much more those who dwell in houses of clay, Whose foundation is in the dust, Who are crushed [G1792] before a moth?

Now King James translated G1792 as 'crushed'.

“Crush” more precisely captures the Hebrew verb דָּכָא (dākāʾ, Strong's H1792) in Isaiah 53:10 than “bruise” in contemporary English.

New King James Version, Is 53:

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

Did God delight in crushing Jesus?

No, not in the sense that God took pleasure in Jesus' suffering itself. Rather, Isaiah 53:10 taught that the Servant's suffering was part of God's deliberate redemptive purpose.

Berean Standard Bible:

10a Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush Him

Strong's Hebrew: 2654. חָפֵץ (chaphets) — 75 Occurrences

HALOT: 1. to take pleasure in, desire 2. with בְּ to delight in, wishes to honour him, to take delight in someone 3. to delight in 4. to be willing, to feel inclined

The interpretive issue was the H2654 could mean to delight in, desire, take pleasure in, or will.

LXX used G1014 to will.

10b and to cause Him to suffer; and when His soul is made a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Strong's Hebrew: 2656. חֵ֫פֶץ (chephets) — 39 Occurrences

HALOT:

joy, delight, pleasing

God was genuinely pleased (H2656), but at the outcome and the obedience, not the agony itself.

H2654 in 10a was related to H2656 in 10b because they share a root. Both appeared in the same verse. Why would BSB choose different meanings for them?

Their immediate contexts were different. The object of the delight differs: negative pain vs positive outcomes.

The NT confirmed the BSB translation.

Acts 2:

23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

This agrees with BSB Is 53:10a. The crucifixion was part of God's plan, although those who crucified Jesus were morally responsible for their actions.

He 12:

2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

This agrees with BSB Is 53:10b. The joy concerned what the suffering would accomplish, not necessarily the suffering itself.

Did it please the Lord to bruise Jesus?

I don't think so. Isaiah 53:10 said that God intentionally willed the Servant's suffering as part of his redemptive purpose. It did not unambiguously say that God enjoyed the pain inflicted upon his Servant. Furthermore, Ac 2:23 confirmed this interpretation unambiguously in the NT.

u/investorpooh

Pastor Russ Dizdar described himself as an expert in spiritual warfare, demonic possession, and satanic ritual abuse.

Chris White interviewed him. White said:

We're fairly well-versed here about the the Nazi based on trauma and mind control and the Occult origins of the Nazis. … Whoever is using this technology now seems to be layering demonic entities or spiritual entities of some sort into the programming, into the different personalities. Do you find that that's because they can get a personality to accept a demon or is it a technical process? What do you know about all that?

This is Nazi conspiracy talk. The “Nazi occult mind control” angle is a popular myth. Historians have found that the Nazi leadership’s interest in occultism was marginal and has been wildly exaggerated in pop culture. Nevertheless, White and some Christians believe that.

Dizdar, the expert, replied:

Yeah, again, it's similar and counterfeit and opposite to the Christian side of things. For example in the in the Bible it talks about a believer who wants to be filled with the power of the holy spirit so they can become a good witness for Christ or receive spiritual gifts to use in ministry. On the other and and in that sense I experience and know what it is to feel the power of the Holy Spirit and to feel his movement and leading and so forth.

There is being filled with the Holy Spirit. There is the counterfeit:

On the other hand, when Splitters split the human core. it creates what they call Raw Personality. One of the first issues is bonding, where there's an emotional bond with the splitter or handler. From that very moment, programming begins, just simply verbalizing what their name's going to be and who they are. They're being lied to from the very beginning. What the programmer, the splitter, is saying: I'm your creator; we're your fathers. From that point on, whether they put it on a screen or drive it through a loop into everything that goes into that raw personality. It is programming. It can be very tech. Once the programming is there, a conjuring or transference of demonic presence can completely empower the person.

This was scary stuff dressed up in technical terms to sound techy and scientific. Technical-sounding language (“raw personality,” “splitters,” “transference”) made a spiritual claim feel clinical. To me, it is nonsense.

White went along:

Obviously there's a public version of that with the Jason Bourne assassin-type thing, but it appears this is so widespread.

White connected Dizdar's personality programming with Jason Bourne's movies. Please note: Jason Bourne was a fictional character, not a real person. Apparently White thought it was common in real life.

If you look at the numbers of Satanic ritual abuse and all of them being multiple personality, or some of them or most of them being multiple personality as well, it seems that everybody in the system doing the bidding of the system is also a mind control slave. Where is this coming from now? Who's churning them out?

Factories are churning out these programmed people to do bad things. More conspiracy. MKUltra and related CIA programs were real (1950s-70s). They were also largely a failure. Investigators found no reliable way to create programmed agents, so they abandoned the program. The Bourne-style assassin came from fiction: Robert Ludlum’s 1980 novel, then the films.

Dizdar took the questions seriously:

Those are the best questions. Chris, We've been kind of crying those questions out. We need to ask who created them. Who are the real handlers?

He claimed that they weaponized these programmed people.

There is the Jason Bourne thing. Someone inside that speaks fluent German, probably two, three, or four other languages when they switch personality. Each personality is programmed. For example, there might be an assassin; one might be a sex slave; one might be a runner; one might be a doctor; one might be a high priestess.

Dizdar thought that secret organizations were producing such individuals through psychological conditioning, trauma, and satanic programming. White believed him.

That's nonsense. I hope you guys can separate the movies from reality.