Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[MG 2.0]

I'm always ready to discuss a little art history.

And that’s not all. My trust level has dropped a notch or two with you.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

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

Ha! A.I. strikes again.

Actually, it's colloquially more along the lines of 'Kiss my Ass."

[I Have Questions]

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

Firstly, you’ve attributed my comments to yourself.

Then you misrepresent what I’ve said. My point is simply that the Book of Mormon contains writing that wasn’t “written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.” So that renders the claim false. Untrue. A lie.

We do not need to consider anything else unless or until that is acknowledged and explained by the Church. By not acknowledging it the Church is knowingly promoting a lie. The reason we can’t ignore it and move on (as you clearly want everyone to do) is because it poisons everything about The Book of Mormon. If it contains things that aren’t legitimately ancient, then everything within it can be assumed not to be legitimately ancient.

Your Church is knowingly telling lies about the content of its keystone scriptural volume. That’s unequivocal. You’re well within your rights to ignore that and not be bothered about it. But those of us with more intellectual honesty aren’t going to let you wave your hands in an attempt to make it all go away on a thread where the topic is whether or not The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

It ain’t.

[malkie]

That's an interesting legend, Morley.

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

1. I see that you left out the most significant part of my comment - a personal anecdote. Oh, well, ...
2. Talking about touching a nerve, ...

[MG 2.0]

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

Firstly, you’ve attributed my comments to yourself.

Then you misrepresent what I’ve said. My point is simply that the Book of Mormon contains writing that wasn’t “written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.” So that renders the claim false. Untrue. A lie.

We do not need to consider anything else unless or until that is acknowledged and explained by the Church. By not acknowledging it the Church is knowingly promoting a lie. The reason we can’t ignore it and move on (as you clearly want everyone to do) is because it poisons everything about The Book of Mormon. If it contains things that aren’t legitimately ancient, then everything within it can be assumed not to be legitimately ancient.

Your Church is knowingly telling lies about the content of its keystone scriptural volume. That’s unequivocal. You’re well within your rights to ignore that and not be bothered about it. But those of us with more intellectual honesty aren’t going to let you wave your hands in an attempt to make it all go away on a thread where the topic is whether or not The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

It ain’t.

You are blind to reason. I don’t know that we can carry this conversation without continuing the circular pattern you are following.

Regards,
MG

[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

1. I see that you left out the most significant part of my comment - a personal anecdote. Oh, well, ...
2. Talking about touching a nerve, ...

I didn’t have an any comment on your anecdote, however relevant to the conversation you meant it to be. Nothing against you. Believe me.

My beef was with another poster. Sorry you might have felt you were in the middle of it. That wasn’t my intent.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Firstly, you’ve attributed my comments to yourself.

Then you misrepresent what I’ve said. My point is simply that the Book of Mormon contains writing that wasn’t “written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.” So that renders the claim false. Untrue. A lie.

We do not need to consider anything else unless or until that is acknowledged and explained by the Church. By not acknowledging it the Church is knowingly promoting a lie. The reason we can’t ignore it and move on (as you clearly want everyone to do) is because it poisons everything about The Book of Mormon. If it contains things that aren’t legitimately ancient, then everything within it can be assumed not to be legitimately ancient.

Your Church is knowingly telling lies about the content of its keystone scriptural volume. That’s unequivocal. You’re well within your rights to ignore that and not be bothered about it. But those of us with more intellectual honesty aren’t going to let you wave your hands in an attempt to make it all go away on a thread where the topic is whether or not The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

It ain’t.

You are blind to reason. I don’t know that we can carry this conversation without continuing the circular pattern you are following.

Regards,
MG

All my posts on this thread are reasoned and supported points, supported by evidence. You’ve try to supply conjecture about the process of how the erroneous material got in there, but what you haven’t grasped yet is that it doesn’t matter. And the reason it doesn’t matter is because the Church, Smith, and the Book of Mormon itself don’t allow space for material from after the end of the first century to be in there.

It matters not one jot as to whether Joseph plagiarised the KJV Bible, whether he got someone else to do it, whether a ghost committee put it in there, or even if God himself put it in there. The only material fact is that it is in there. And because it is, the Book of Mormon cannot be taken seriously as an scientific record from no later than the first century - and yet that is what the Church asserts it to be.

There’s no point in discussing elephants, barley, parallels to The Pilgrims Progress etc because The Book of Mormon has already been proven to be at least partially fake.

Your responses have done nothing to resolve that. All you’ve done is try to deflect attention on to Joseph’s role in all of it. But it doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t do. The erroneous material is in there, and that condemns the Church’s assertions about it.

[MG 2.0]

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

Ha! A.I. strikes again.

Actually, it's colloquially more along the lines of 'Kiss my Ass."

"Va te faire foutre" is a French phrase that's considered quite vulgar and rude. It roughly translates to "Go ‘f’ yourself” in English, and is often used as an insult or expression of anger or frustration.

It's definitely not a phrase you'd want to use lightly or in polite company, as it's considered extremely offensive in French culture.

“Go “F” yourself.”

Va — imperative form of aller, “go.”

te — Reflexive form of the informal pronoun tu; te is equivalent to “to you” or “yourself.”

faire — “do” or “make” (as in “do the damned of yourself”).

foutre — “to “F”” as an infinitive.

I think I know what you meant. You are a vulgar man. And trying to slip it under the radar.

Yeah. Nice.

You are not to be trusted.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You are blind to reason. I don’t know that we can carry this conversation without continuing the circular pattern you are following.

Regards,
MG

All my posts on this thread are reasoned and supported points, supported by evidence. You’ve try to supply conjecture about the process of how the erroneous material got in there, but what you haven’t grasped yet is that it doesn’t matter. And the reason it doesn’t matter is because the Church, Smith, and the Book of Mormon itself don’t allow space for material from after the end of the first century to be in there.

It matters not one jot as to whether Joseph plagiarised the KJV Bible, whether he got someone else to do it, whether a ghost committee put it in there, or even if God himself put it in there. The only material fact is that it is in there. And because it is, the Book of Mormon cannot be taken seriously as an scientific record from no later than the first century - and yet that is what the Church asserts it to be.

There’s no point in discussing elephants, barley, parallels to The Pilgrims Progress etc because The Book of Mormon has already been proven to be at least partially fake.

Your responses have done nothing to resolve that.

You are committed to this viewpoint. We are at an impasse.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

All my posts on this thread are reasoned and supported points, supported by evidence. You’ve try to supply conjecture about the process of how the erroneous material got in there, but what you haven’t grasped yet is that it doesn’t matter. And the reason it doesn’t matter is because the Church, Smith, and the Book of Mormon itself don’t allow space for material from after the end of the first century to be in there.

It matters not one jot as to whether Joseph plagiarised the KJV Bible, whether he got someone else to do it, whether a ghost committee put it in there, or even if God himself put it in there. The only material fact is that it is in there. And because it is, the Book of Mormon cannot be taken seriously as an scientific record from no later than the first century - and yet that is what the Church asserts it to be.

There’s no point in discussing elephants, barley, parallels to The Pilgrims Progress etc because The Book of Mormon has already been proven to be at least partially fake.

Your responses have done nothing to resolve that.

You are committed to this viewpoint. We are at an impasse.

Regards,
MG

The facts are the facts. That there is erroneous material in the Book of Mormon isn’t a viewpoint. It’s a hard fact. The Church’s claim about where the content comes from is a lie. That’s also a hard fact. Not a viewpoint.