Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[MG 2.0]

Yeah, I did. Not gonna play your normal twist and shout dance/routine. Waste of time.

Oliver said what he said. It had to do with your quote. He had his opinion. Joseph had his.

Nuff said. To me it looks like they both might have been off target. But then I have an opinion too.

Regards,
MG

This is too funny. I was quoting from a link that YOU inserted into a post on this thread, apropos of nothing:

Here is another paper that can be added to the other links I’ve posted in this thread. Only for the lurkers though.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/historicity-latter- ... ook-Mormon...

So I read your link and responded, but you now call talking about your own link "a waste of time"!!!!!!!

Because, get this, you think "it looks like [the people quoted] might have been off target." In a link YOU posted in support of Book of Mormon historicity.

Seriously, mg, you have outdone yourself this time. It's hard to believe you're not just Poe-ing.

I think I’m talking past you without being heard. There is some kind of filter there that I don’t seem to be able to break through. Whether that’s purposeful or not I really don’t know. What I do know is that it’s a dead end trying to talk with you without you consistently going off on the nonessentials that really don’t add anything to the conversation.

Watching a hamster running round and round a hamster wheel is more interesting and engaging.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I expected that they might offer up some kind of ‘door approach’ or persuasive ‘intro’ to start talking religion. As it was, they didn’t and I didn’t. We just had a nice conversation and got to know each other.

But yes, I was expecting them to go into ‘religious mode”.

Still trying to look for that ‘weakness’ to drive a wedge in, huh Gadianton?

I would say this is more total dishonesty. You're just making things up as you go along -- I guess like a freestyle floor routine?

Now you're saying a "testimony" would have been any kind of "door approach" -- anything at all where they talk about religion. But they didn't talk about religion, you just talked the weather. Placing this back into the context of your other statements, you would be saying that you've had several encounters with JWs, at no time have they ever borne "testimony" like Mormon missionaries do, and so you've concluded that JWs don't talk about religion, they just talk about the weather? This is patently absurd, MG.

Then, or at other times I’ve talked with JW’s.

That’s not anything against what they might feel in their hearts, it’s just that I haven’t really heard them come out and express their deepest intuitions or feelings.

LDS Missionaries come right out and bear witness and testify of the truth. They don’t hold anything back.

Over the years, however, I’ve talked with a number of missionaries from their church. No testimonies.

Seems to be more common with missionaries from the LDS Church.

Sure, MG, if they didn't talk about religion at all, no door approach whatsoever, then clearly they also failed to bear their souls and convey their deepest feelings. Again, to take you seriously with your latest interpretation of yourself, you'd be saying that JWs don't seem to ever talk about religion at all. That Mormon missionaries seem to talk about religion but JWs don't. Which is silly. Obviously, this isn't what you were saying.

[MG 2.0]

MG, you just got boom roasted!

I’m not even sure what you mean. Whatever you are attempting to ‘make stick’, however, I’m not really too concerned about. Past history tells me that you seem to have absolutely no guardrails to keep you from lying.

So whatever point you’re trying to make I’m sure that your compatriots will ‘get it’.

It’s all about the ‘other’, isn’t it? Playground mentality. Gang up on the ‘weak one’ and in unison…pummel him or her.

That’s weakness.

And that’s when threads are derailed or come to an end.

I’m happy to let those reading in the background go back an look at the content of this thread. I think that overall it’s been a good discussion excepting the apparent fixation on personality and nit picky stuff that really doesn’t matter.

It usually comes down to that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I expected that they might offer up some kind of ‘door approach’ or persuasive ‘intro’ to start talking religion. As it was, they didn’t and I didn’t. We just had a nice conversation and got to know each other.

But yes, I was expecting them to go into ‘religious mode”.

Still trying to look for that ‘weakness’ to drive a wedge in, huh Gadianton?

I would say this is more total dishonesty. You're just making things up as you go along -- I guess like a freestyle floor routine?

Now you're saying a "testimony" would have been any kind of "door approach" -- anything at all where they talk about religion. But they didn't talk about religion, you just talked the weather. Placing this back into the context of your other statements, you would be saying that you've had several encounters with JWs, at no time have they ever borne "testimony" like Mormon missionaries do, and so you've concluded that JWs don't talk about religion, they just talk about the weather? This is patently absurd, MG.

Then, or at other times I’ve talked with JW’s.

That’s not anything against what they might feel in their hearts, it’s just that I haven’t really heard them come out and express their deepest intuitions or feelings.

LDS Missionaries come right out and bear witness and testify of the truth. They don’t hold anything back.

Over the years, however, I’ve talked with a number of missionaries from their church. No testimonies.

Seems to be more common with missionaries from the LDS Church.

Sure, MG, if they didn't talk about religion at all, no door approach whatsoever, then clearly they also failed to bear their souls and convey their deepest feelings. Again, to take you seriously with your latest interpretation of yourself, you'd be saying that JWs don't seem to ever talk about religion at all. That Mormon missionaries seem to talk about religion but JWs don't. Which is silly. Obviously, this isn't what you were saying.

Gadianton, as with the last few posters I’m not going to respond to this post. There is nothing here that actually has any interest for me.

I’m hesitant to say it, but I’m seeing a lot of hot air.

I’m sure there will be those that say, “Nice job on avoiding the topic or the ‘hard’ questions”

That’s not it. It’s simply the lack of substance to actually respond to.

Responding to nit picking is of very little interest to me.

As I mentioned to Wang earlier in the thread, I don’t respond well, if at all, to what I can see as ‘traps’ that really don’t lead anywhere productive other than a ‘gotcha’.

Not interested. I’m more interested in the exchange of opinions and ideas without the ‘laying a trap’ for one’s neighbor.

I think some might take a lesson from both of the contenders in the debate tonight.They were quite civil and able to cut slack where needed in order to continue the debate.

They were actually able to agree on a number of points. Critics of Mormonism have an awful hard time doing that.

It’s all or nothing it seems.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’ve said it before on other threads. If this thread has run its course and we’re into the ‘nit picky’ phase, I’ve got better things to do.

Watching to see what comes next.

Drum roll…

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG, you just got boom roasted!

[Marcus]

...PG did a great job of why some minority religions feel the need testify.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm suggesting that members of other faiths are just as strong and as sure in their beliefs as any Mormon is in theirs. To suggest otherwise is stupid.

...your last statement. And if I wasn’t clear let me say even more clearly that I agree with that statement. There, I bolded it. You’re making something out of nothing. Honestly, that’s what I see throughout your post...

You can say whatever you want, but the problem is that you have made it clear, repeatedly, and for a very long time, that you do NOT agree with Morley's statement. You wouldn't have called grindael a loser when he announced the acceptance of his paper if you did.

[I Have Questions]

So you made a point of approaching two JW’s for a chat and didn’t bear your sincere testimony of Mormonism? Wow! Is in-person missionary work someone else’s job in your mind?

I didn’t feel prompted to do so.

So you are dismissive of them for not bearing what you would classify as a sincere testimony, but you excuse yourself from doing the exact same thing by blaming God for not prompting you to do it. I think that’s called having a double standard.

It is further evidence in support of my working theory about you:

Gadianton, I have a working hypothesis that no matter the level of sincerity, MG 2.0 will not accept as legitimately equivalent any statement of belief from anyone, anywhere, ever, unless it’s a Mormon bearing the same set of beliefs that he chooses to believe.

I think he’s incapable of being even-handed when weighing up a persons beliefs. What counts as evidence for Mormonism, will not count as evidence for <something else>.

[I Have Questions]

Yeah, I did. Not gonna play your normal twist and shout dance/routine. Waste of time.

Oliver said what he said. It had to do with your quote. He had his opinion. Joseph had his.

Nuff said. To me it looks like they both might have been off target. But then I have an opinion too.

Regards,
MG

This is too funny. I was quoting from a link that YOU inserted into a post on this thread, apropos of nothing:

Here is another paper that can be added to the other links I’ve posted in this thread. Only for the lurkers though.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/historicity-latter- ... ook-Mormon...

So I read your link and responded, but you now call talking about your own link "a waste of time"!!!!!!!

Because, get this, you think "it looks like [the people quoted] might have been off target." In a link YOU posted in support of Book of Mormon historicity.

Seriously, mg, you have outdone yourself this time. It's hard to believe you're not just Poe-ing.

Priceless

[Morley]

Hi Morley,
I’m not seeing anything in your response that I’m finding anything other as ‘filler’. But thanks for your response, such as it is.

The only thing I see that is worth responding to is your last statement. And if I wasn’t clear let me say even more clearly that I agree with that statement. There, I bolded it. You’re making something out of nothing. Honestly, that’s what I see throughout your post.

Filler.

But you did respond. Partial credit for that.

Regards,
MG

Ha! And here it is. The patented MG self-righteous, contemptuous dismissal that's always eventually in evidence when you're cornered. Full credit for consistency.