Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[MG 2.0]

More often than not you stick to substance. What happened here?

Try to get you to respond to anything substantive is a useless endeavor.

I don’t know about that. All a can observe is what you post and the pictures you put out there.

You’re an interesting fellow. It would be something to meet you in real life. You sound like a real character.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

...



The image is of a painting by the French Impressionist Gustave Caillebotte, who lived in the Paris suburb of Petit-Gennevilliers, in the end of the Nineteenth Century.

Legend has it that, in the middle of his village's town square, there was a modest bulletin board where people would post comments about religion and politics. One day, Caillebotte posted this painting as a response to the bigoted ravings of a local lunatic who called himself Gymnastique Mentale. Though the painting is now known as "Homme au bain," at the time that he tacked it up, Caillebotte simply called it "Va te faire foutre."

That's an interesting legend, Morley.

The Scots dialect that I grew up with (just west of Glasgow) included a number of expressions that were derived from French and/or Latin, although I'm not sure how many of my fellow Scots were aware of that. One expression that my very proper granny used to use falls into that category.

When one of us grandchildren misbehaved, she would admonish us thusly: "Ach, malkie, don't be sic a wee fouter!"

She died long before I ever learned any French, but I don't think that, even as an adult, I would have had the temerity to explain that expression to her.

[I Have Questions]

I think you are putting way too much confidence in Joseph Smith’s natural abilities. You would still have to explain the rest of the Book of Mormon. I don’t see this as a smoking gun as you do.

I absolutely do not need to explain the rest of the Book of Mormon. Smith and the Church attests that 100% of the content of the Book of Mormon was written prior to the end of the 1st Century. I’ve shown that it contains content that was written later than that. Including specific and unique content that was written in the 17th Century. That shows the attestation about the Book of Mormon’s origin, made by Smith, the Church, and written in the beginning of book itself, is false. The Book of Mormon is demonstrably not what it is claimed to be.

I have no need to address anything else beyond that unless or until the Church amends its claim about The Book of Mormon to something else. Once that happens, once that latter day content is admitted and explained, then and only then do I need to consider the rest of the Book of Mormon.

[MG 2.0]

...



The image is of a painting by the French Impressionist Gustave Caillebotte, who lived in the Paris suburb of Petit-Gennevilliers, in the end of the Nineteenth Century.

Legend has it that, in the middle of his village's town square, there was a modest bulletin board where people would post comments about religion and politics. One day, Caillebotte posted this painting as a response to the bigoted ravings of a local lunatic who called himself Gymnastique Mentale. Though the painting is now known as "Homme au bain," at the time that he tacked it up, Caillebotte simply called it "Va te faire foutre."

That's an interesting legend, Morley.

Yes it is. Fascinating story!

"Va te faire foutre" is a French phrase that roughly translates to "Go ‘f’ yourself" in English.

So, if this story is true, it seems that Caillebotte was making quite a bold and defiant statement in response to the bigotry of this local lunatic.

It's interesting to think about the context in which this painting was created and the motivations behind it. Do you know more about the specifics of what Gymnastique Mentale was saying that prompted such a strong response from Caillebotte?
Pi A.I.

Joining the ranks with Mr. Wang Chung I see. Disgusting.

Seemingly I touched a nerve. I guess I won’t be treating you to lunch.

Grow up.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think you are putting way too much confidence in Joseph Smith’s natural abilities. You would still have to explain the rest of the Book of Mormon. I don’t see this as a smoking gun as you do.

I absolutely do not need to explain the rest of the Book of Mormon. Smith and the Church attests that 100% of the content of the Book of Mormon was written prior to the end of the 1st Century. I’ve shown that it contains content that was written later than that. Including specific and unique content that was written in the 17th Century. That shows the attestation about the Book of Mormon’s origin, made by Smith, the Church, and written in the beginning of book itself, is false. The Book of Mormon is demonstrably not what it is claimed to be.

I have no need to address anything else beyond that unless or until the Church amends its claim about The Book of Mormon to something else. Once that happens, once that latter day content is admitted and explained, then and only then do I need to consider the rest of the Book of Mormon.

You are perfectly within your rights to take this course. In the meantime those that are active and believing members of the church will continue to follow the covenant path and walk in discipleship of Jesus Christ.

However ‘dumbly’ you might think that we are doing so.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I have no need to address anything else beyond that unless or until the Church amends its claim about The Book of Mormon to something else. Once that happens, once that latter day content is admitted and explained, then and only then do I need to consider the rest of the Book of Mormon.

This is a common refrain. My way or the highway.

Like God needs to be told how to do things?

You overlooked most of my response on the previous page of this thread as you have overlooked and ignored what I’ve said during most of this conversation.

You keep coming back to the same refrain even after I post reasons to question that line of thinking.

How wide the divide between believers and the critics. Especially with those that were once members of the church.

I find that quite interesting.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

MG, I thought the standard apologetic reply was when Joseph ran into Bible excerpts in the Book of Mormon he used his KJ version to facilitate translation more rapidly. It is normal view of inspiration and revelation (observed by Joseph and standing to reason) that it works with thinking not without it. Using the KJ would be practical reason.

[Morley]

That's an interesting legend, Morley.

Yes it is. Fascinating story!

"Va te faire foutre" is a French phrase that roughly translates to "Go ‘f’ yourself" in English.

So, if this story is true, it seems that Caillebotte was making quite a bold and defiant statement in response to the bigotry of this local lunatic.

It's interesting to think about the context in which this painting was created and the motivations behind it. Do you know more about the specifics of what Gymnastique Mentale was saying that prompted such a strong response from Caillebotte?
Pi A.I.

Joining the ranks with Mr. Wang Chung I see. Disgusting.

Seemingly I touched a nerve. I guess I won’t be treating you to lunch.

Grow up.

Regards,
MG

Meh. Not at all. Thanks for asking about the meaning of the painting, though. I'm always ready to discuss a little art history.

Maybe however, as you consistently advise others, maybe you need to not be so sensitive and get off your high horse.

[MG 2.0]

Yes it is. Fascinating story!



Joining the ranks with Mr. Wang Chung I see. Disgusting.

Seemingly I touched a nerve. I guess I won’t be treating you to lunch.

Grow up.

Regards,
MG

Meh. Not at all. Thanks for asking about the meaning of the painting. I'm always ready to discuss a little art history.

Maybe however, as you consistently advise others, maybe you need to not be so sensitive and get off your high horse.

As I said over on the other thread, this says more about you than it does me.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG, I thought the standard apologetic reply was when Joseph ran into Bible excerpts in the Book of Mormon he used his KJ version to facilitate translation more rapidly. It is normal view of inspiration and revelation (observed by Joseph and standing to reason) that it works with thinking not without it. Using the KJ would be practical reason.

From my understanding though we have a mix of KJ and English used from an earlier period. One has to account for that. Some of that 17th century dialect (if this is the right word) would possibly been part of Joseph’s vocabulary (through his grandfathers), but who really knows?

It seems likely to me that as Joseph was translating it was a collaboration of some kind. Obviously it is a bit difficult to parse out the nuts and bolts of the process.

So we have stuff from the KJ and stuff from 17th century. What to do with that? I see that as another problem with going ‘whole hog’ with IHQ’s rather black and white/either or views.

Regards,
MG