Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Jacob is being misrepresented AGAIN just as he was in the post that drumdude and IHAQ referred to off of Reddit that was shown to be BS (in my previous post).

Don’t take things at face value because someone on Reddit says it...

Or if a random forum poster asserts the opposite, right? I did my own research re Jacob Hansen. The reddit posts referred to were accurate, in my opinion. Here's another exchange that's pertinent from a friend of mine, whose opinion I fully trust:

–]Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant[F] 15 points 1 year ago
Thanks for hosting this kind of a discussion. I find Jacob Hansen's content completely insufferable. I also think the "thoughtful" part of the name of his channel is quite the stretch. He wants to act like he's reached his positions after really wrestling with the issues, but they sure sound like primary level answers to me in all of the videos I've watched.

While he may have stated in this interview that he stands against ad hominem or personal attacks, he still has videos on his channel attacking John Dehlin, Dr. Julie Hanks, and others. I mean he even calls out certain Christian apologists by name...

[–]unixguy55 8 points 1 year ago
I've interacted with Hansen on Facebook through mutual friends. He's more of a politician really, in how he debates issues and the tactics he uses. He often strays off topic, and while he tries not to engage in personal attacks, he often uses every other logical fallacy to argue his point. When he does cite sources or provide statistical data, it's always polarized to support his viewpoint exclusively.

[–]Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant[F] 4 points 1 year ago
Exactly. He seems to have little concern for determining truth and cares much more about scoring rhetorical points through debate...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... r/iykz0xq/

[Gadianton]

There is such a thing as bad apologetics

Could you give me an example of bad apologetics that have been done for the Book of Mormon?

[Morley]

I have to unfortunate say the same of Jacob Hansen, after catching him in some falsehoods and apparently now some transphobia.

You have? Where? I listened (twice) to the video presentation you linked to. I’m not seeing it.

Regards,
MG

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you linked to the video that you're asking everyone to watch for themselves. Here 'tis:

https://youtu.be/DXVL5AYQ8dY?si=_L-awpXnjfVbUaer

And here's a response to it:

https://www.youtube.com/live/GvKS4eC7xG ... fnovIyVXY7

[MG 2.0]

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Jacob is being misrepresented AGAIN just as he was in the post that drumdude and IHAQ referred to off of Reddit that was shown to be BS (in my previous post).

Don’t take things at face value because someone on Reddit says it...

Or if a random forum poster asserts the opposite, right? I did my own research re Jacob Hansen. The reddit posts referred to were accurate, in my opinion. Here's another exchange that's pertinent from a friend of mine, whose opinion I fully trust:

–]Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant[F] 15 points 1 year ago
Thanks for hosting this kind of a discussion. I find Jacob Hansen's content completely insufferable. I also think the "thoughtful" part of the name of his channel is quite the stretch. He wants to act like he's reached his positions after really wrestling with the issues, but they sure sound like primary level answers to me in all of the videos I've watched.

While he may have stated in this interview that he stands against ad hominem or personal attacks, he still has videos on his channel attacking John Dehlin, Dr. Julie Hanks, and others. I mean he even calls out certain Christian apologists by name...

[–]unixguy55 8 points 1 year ago
I've interacted with Hansen on Facebook through mutual friends. He's more of a politician really, in how he debates issues and the tactics he uses. He often strays off topic, and while he tries not to engage in personal attacks, he often uses every other logical fallacy to argue his point. When he does cite sources or provide statistical data, it's always polarized to support his viewpoint exclusively.

[–]Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant[F] 4 points 1 year ago
Exactly. He seems to have little concern for determining truth and cares much more about scoring rhetorical points through debate...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... r/iykz0xq/

I’m glad you trust your friend. And that you did your own research.

No bias, I’m sure.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

There is such a thing as bad apologetics

Could you give me an example of bad apologetics that have been done for the Book of Mormon?

There have been various examples of bad apologetics related to the Book of Mormon over the years. Here are a few examples:

1. Ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon's claims, such as DNA evidence showing that Native Americans are not primarily descended from ancient Israelites.

2. Using circular reasoning to defend the Book of Mormon, such as arguing that the book is true because it says it is true.

3. Cherry-picking evidence that supports the Book of Mormon while ignoring evidence that contradicts it, such as focusing on a few parallels between the book and ancient American cultures while ignoring the many differences and anachronisms.

4. Misrepresenting or misunderstanding the views of critics of the Book of Mormon, such as claiming that all critics are anti-Mormon or biased against the LDS Church.

5. Relying on faith-based arguments that are not supported by evidence or reason, such as arguing that the Book of Mormon must be true because of personal spiritual experiences or feelings.

6. Claiming that the Book of Mormon is true because Joseph Smith could not have written it on his own, without considering the possibility that he could have had help from others or that he was simply a talented writer.

7. Arguing that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate because it mentions things like horses and steel, despite the fact that there is no archaeological evidence to support these claims.

8. Dismissing the idea that the Book of Mormon could have been influenced by other books or ideas that were available to Joseph Smith at the time, such as the works of Solomon Spaulding or Ethan Smith.

9. Using the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses as proof of its authenticity, without considering the possibility that their testimonies were biased or influenced by social pressure.

10. Assuming that any criticism of the Book of Mormon must be motivated by anti-Mormon sentiment, rather than by a genuine desire to understand the truth.

Is that good enough for starters?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Could you give me an example of bad apologetics that have been done for the Book of Mormon?

There have been various examples of bad apologetics related to the Book of Mormon over the years. Here are a few examples:

1. Ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon's claims, such as DNA evidence showing that Native Americans are not primarily descended from ancient Israelites.

2. Using circular reasoning to defend the Book of Mormon, such as arguing that the book is true because it says it is true.

3. Cherry-picking evidence that supports the Book of Mormon while ignoring evidence that contradicts it, such as focusing on a few parallels between the book and ancient American cultures while ignoring the many differences and anachronisms.

4. Misrepresenting or misunderstanding the views of critics of the Book of Mormon, such as claiming that all critics are anti-Mormon or biased against the LDS Church.

5. Relying on faith-based arguments that are not supported by evidence or reason, such as arguing that the Book of Mormon must be true because of personal spiritual experiences or feelings.

6. Claiming that the Book of Mormon is true because Joseph Smith could not have written it on his own, without considering the possibility that he could have had help from others or that he was simply a talented writer.

7. Arguing that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate because it mentions things like horses and steel, despite the fact that there is no archaeological evidence to support these claims.

8. Dismissing the idea that the Book of Mormon could have been influenced by other books or ideas that were available to Joseph Smith at the time, such as the works of Solomon Spaulding or Ethan Smith.

9. Using the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses as proof of its authenticity, without considering the possibility that their testimonies were biased or influenced by social pressure.

10. Assuming that any criticism of the Book of Mormon must be motivated by anti-Mormon sentiment, rather than by a genuine desire to understand the truth.

Is that good enough for starters?

Regards,
MG

These seem to an overview of Jacob Hansen's approach in the debate you posted in the OP.

[MG 2.0]

You have? Where? I listened (twice) to the video presentation you linked to. I’m not seeing it.

Regards,
MG

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you linked to the video that you're asking everyone to watch for themselves. Here 'tis:

https://youtu.be/DXVL5AYQ8dY?si=_L-awpXnjfVbUaer

And here's a response to it:

https://www.youtube.com/live/GvKS4eC7xG ... fnovIyVXY7

drumdude opined a bit on the video earlier in the thread without linking to it. I found it on my own.

I didn’t know Dehlin did a response episode. When I get an opportunity I may watch it. I haven’t watched MS much in the last while. I used to watch almost every episode back in the day.

I’ve already commented on why I don’t think the Reddit response was accurate, which is what drumdude was going off of without actually having watched Jacob’s video.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

There have been various examples of bad apologetics related to the Book of Mormon over the years. Here are a few examples:

1. Ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon's claims, such as DNA evidence showing that Native Americans are not primarily descended from ancient Israelites.

2. Using circular reasoning to defend the Book of Mormon, such as arguing that the book is true because it says it is true.

3. Cherry-picking evidence that supports the Book of Mormon while ignoring evidence that contradicts it, such as focusing on a few parallels between the book and ancient American cultures while ignoring the many differences and anachronisms.

4. Misrepresenting or misunderstanding the views of critics of the Book of Mormon, such as claiming that all critics are anti-Mormon or biased against the LDS Church.

5. Relying on faith-based arguments that are not supported by evidence or reason, such as arguing that the Book of Mormon must be true because of personal spiritual experiences or feelings.

6. Claiming that the Book of Mormon is true because Joseph Smith could not have written it on his own, without considering the possibility that he could have had help from others or that he was simply a talented writer.

7. Arguing that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate because it mentions things like horses and steel, despite the fact that there is no archaeological evidence to support these claims.

8. Dismissing the idea that the Book of Mormon could have been influenced by other books or ideas that were available to Joseph Smith at the time, such as the works of Solomon Spaulding or Ethan Smith.

9. Using the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses as proof of its authenticity, without considering the possibility that their testimonies were biased or influenced by social pressure.

10. Assuming that any criticism of the Book of Mormon must be motivated by anti-Mormon sentiment, rather than by a genuine desire to understand the truth.

Is that good enough for starters?

Regards,
MG

These seem to an overview of Jacob Hansen's approach in the debate you posted in the OP.

I guess you would have to go through and do a detailed analysis point by point and show this to be true. Otherwise all we have to go on is your word for it.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

These seem to an overview of Jacob Hansen's approach in the debate you posted in the OP.

I guess you would have to go through and do a detailed analysis point by point and show this to be true. Otherwise all we have to go on is your word for it.

No need to. Jacob does it all by himself.

[MG 2.0]

These seem to an overview of Jacob Hansen's approach in the debate you posted in the OP.

So you watched it! It probably wouldn’t be hard to go through everything he said and show that it was just bad apologetics.

Regards,
MG