Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[MG 2.0]

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.

Well, Ok then.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

No need to. Jacob does it all by himself.

Well, Ok then.

Regards,
MG

I'm glad you posted this video, MG. I had no idea who Jacob Hansen was before this. It's interesting that this is the argument and spokesman that you think will appeal to those who are wavering in belief.

More power to you. You should post more.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

As someone who grew up in conservative Mormonism, and having deprogrammed myself, I realized years ago how Mormons think, and it’s “starting with bad information and doubling down on it.” The question posed in this thread’s title is an example of a badly worded premise, as it sets the stage for bad-faith mopologetics. To try to talk to MG is to try to explain that the sky is blue without realizing he can’t see color to begin with. It’s trying to explain walking to him, but he has no legs.

Most of us had to do real work to understand basic logical constructions; I feel like my own ability to understand symbolism, metaphor, and analogy, wasn’t as good as it could be as a result of the way religious thinking affected me, and I’ve had to do a lot of work just to get to where I am.

Genuine, honest to goodness, logical fallacies and dishonest debate techniques are taught as reasonable ways to reach conclusions. Having a good-faith conversation with a Mormon who asks if the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired is almost impossible because actual ‘illogics’ and false information are taught to them as reason and fact. To top it all off, the way atheists and non-religious people are discussed in church makes them out to be completely unreliable and evil people who are partly or wholly interested in their spiritual destruction.

The only way these people can realize the inanity of their thinking is to risk everything they’ve ever known.

It might suck to hear, but these people are beyond reach. It’s painful, it’s mean, it’s hurtful, it’s callous. It’s not something I want to say. My entire community of people that I knew prior to deprogramming myself are people I cared about. My literal parents. My brother. Almost all of the friends I made in church.

I don’t want to say they are unreachable. I don’t want to say it’s not worth it.

But it literally is not. It’s a burden that we can’t carry, to try to be reasonable and rational and play the game answering questions like the one in the title.

It’s the pain I feel every single day at losing people who meant the world to me because they think and operate in inherently dysfunctional and hurtful ways because that’s what they are taught is healthy.

It’s the trouble I have in feeling normal around the new social groups I built for myself, that I struggled to build for myself, as a result of the religious abuse and emotional trauma we endured from growing up in a high-control environment.

These are people who want leopards to eat their face. They eat, sleep, and breathe the idea that leopards eating their face is right, just, and desirable.

And the only way the majority of these people will ever actually wake up to that fact is by letting the leopard do what it will do, and maybe afterward being there for them, if you happen to have the energy to do it, is the way to go. Until then, I don’t play their “F”-“F” games, nor do I debate their larping and lore any more. There’s no point.

- Doc

[Morley]

Hansen's whole argument can be reduced to: "If you can get yourself to believe in The Bible, then you can also get yourself to believe The Book of Mormon."

[MG 2.0]

Well, Ok then.

Regards,
MG

I'm glad you posted this video, MG. I had no idea who Jacob Hansen was before this. It's interesting that this is the argument and spokesman that you think will appeal to those who are wavering in belief.

More power to you. You should post more.

I think his success on you tube and his Thoughtful Faith website has mainly to do with the younger set he may appeal to. Young dad, married, children. Active in the faith. Tackles hard issues. Isn’t afraid to speak his mind.

Seems like a good guy doing what he believes to be a good work. I don’t fault him for that. He definitely has a different ‘vibe’ than some of the old apologists that get raked over the coals here.

I think the Jacob Hansens are the ‘new wave’ that some of the old time critics are going to find they are ‘out of touch’ with. Simply as a result of the generational ‘hip’ factor.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You should post more.

No thanks. But thanks.

About done this time around.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I'm glad you posted this video, MG. I had no idea who Jacob Hansen was before this. It's interesting that this is the argument and spokesman that you think will appeal to those who are wavering in belief.

More power to you. You should post more.

I think his success on you tube and his Thoughtful Faith website has mainly to do with the younger set he may appeal to. Young dad, married, children. Active in the faith. Tackles hard issues. Isn’t afraid to speak his mind.

Seems like a good guy doing what he believes to be a good work. I don’t fault him for that. He definitely has a different ‘vibe’ than some of the old apologists that get raked over the coals here.

I think the Jacob Hansens are the ‘new wave’ that some of the old time critics are going to find they are ‘out of touch’ with. Simply as a result of the generational ‘hip’ factor.

Regards,
MG

I was hoping for something new or different. But I don't get it. How are his arguments or manner any different than, say, Daniel Peterson's?

edit: Not that's there's anything wrong with Daniel.

[MG 2.0]

I think his success on you tube and his Thoughtful Faith website has mainly to do with the younger set he may appeal to. Young dad, married, children. Active in the faith. Tackles hard issues. Isn’t afraid to speak his mind.

Seems like a good guy doing what he believes to be a good work. I don’t fault him for that. He definitely has a different ‘vibe’ than some of the old apologists that get raked over the coals here.

I think the Jacob Hansens are the ‘new wave’ that some of the old time critics are going to find they are ‘out of touch’ with. Simply as a result of the generational ‘hip’ factor.

Regards,
MG

I was hoping for something new or different. But I don't get it. How are his arguments or manner any different than, say, Daniel Peterson's?

edit: Not that's there's anything wrong with Daniel.

He simply appeals to a new generation. He tackles various issues as they become ‘in the news’, so to speak, and what he sees ‘out there’ that may be of interest to the younger set. He uses a mix of old time apologetics while bringing in what might be more current/nuanced thinking. Although in the video drumdude was concerned with he had more questions than answers. But again, this probably went right along the confusion and questions that many others are currently struggling with.

I suppose he’s more relevant than guys like Midgely and the old timers that interest many here.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As someone who grew up in conservative Mormonism, and having deprogrammed myself, I realized years ago how Mormons think, and it’s “starting with bad information and doubling down on it.” The question posed in this thread’s title is an example of a badly worded premise, as it sets the stage for bad-faith mopologetics. To try to talk to MG is to try to explain that the sky is blue without realizing he can’t see color to begin with. It’s trying to explain walking to him, but he has no legs.

Most of us had to do real work to understand basic logical constructions; I feel like my own ability to understand symbolism, metaphor, and analogy, wasn’t as good as it could be as a result of the way religious thinking affected me, and I’ve had to do a lot of work just to get to where I am.

Genuine, honest to goodness, logical fallacies and dishonest debate techniques are taught as reasonable ways to reach conclusions. Having a good-faith conversation with a Mormon who asks if the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired is almost impossible because actual ‘illogics’ and false information are taught to them as reason and fact. To top it all off, the way atheists and non-religious people are discussed in church makes them out to be completely unreliable and evil people who are partly or wholly interested in their spiritual destruction.

The only way these people can realize these inanity of their thinking is to risk everything they’ve ever known.

It might suck to hear, but these people are beyond reach. It’s painful, it’s mean, it’s hurtful, it’s callous. It’s not something I want to say. My entire community of people that I knew prior to deprogramming myself are people I cared about. My literal parents. My brother. Almost all of the friends I made in church.

I don’t want to say they are unreachable. I don’t want to say it’s not worth it.

But it literally is not. It’s a burden that we can’t carry, to try to be reasonable and rational and play the game answering questions like the one in the title.

It’s the pain I feel every single day at losing people who meant the world to me because they think and operate in inherently dysfunctional and hurtful ways because that’s what they are taught is healthy.

It’s the trouble I have in feeling normal around the new social groups I built for myself, that I struggled to build for myself, as a result of the religious abuse and emotional trauma we endured from growing up in a high-control environment.

These are people who want leopards to eat their face. They eat, sleep, and breathe the idea that leopards eating their face is right, just, and desirable.

And the only way the majority of these people will ever actually wake up to that fact is by letting the leopard do what it will do, and maybe afterward being there for them, if you happen to have the energy to do it, is the way to go. Until then, I don’t play their “F”-“F” games, nor do I debate their larping and lore any more. There’s no point.

- Doc

Thanks for sharing, Doc. I truly hope you’ve found your ‘peace’ after all you’ve been through. I hope you still have some kind of positive connection with your family.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

If you didn't come up with these examples yourself, you should cite your source. If you got it from Hanson, I give you credit for that much, as I didn't think you watched the video.

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.

Mainstream apologists ignore / dismiss by post-hoc redefining doctrine and then pressuring the Church to re-write the introduction. So this example is highly dishonest.

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

I'm not aware of Mormons doing this. This is what Mormons accuse Christians of doing with the Bible. Mormons believe you have to read/pray. So this example is highly dishonest.

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.

You'd have to give an example of this, otherwise it doesn't answer the question. It's a hypothetical example given to sound fair-minded, but without accepting any risk of ever achieving reality. Flat earthers would say the same thing: cherry-picking evidence for the flat earth while ignoring evidence for the round earth is bad. (too bad they aren't doing that!)

Several of these examples have this same problem: 5, 6, 8, and 9 all have this problem.

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.

This is disjointed --- claiming critics are anti or biased isn't an example of misrepresenting their views. You can correctly frame their views and still think their motivation is biased. by the way, this is you, like, in every thread. The assumption that critics merely restate their biases. You just did it with Morley. Again.

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.

Another one that doesn't make sense, like you were taking notes too fast.

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.

You've got yourself in the crosshairs with this one.