Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[drumdude]

M.G. 2.0's hero, Jacob Hansen really doesn't like Julie Hanks or her counseling methods. In fact Jacob Hansen was so irritated by Julie, that he studied, prayed and even pondered about what he should do. The answer he received from God was to notify Julie's Stake President and to make a series of online videos attacking Julie.

After sending the letter, along with various materials, to Julie's Stake President, Julie's Stake President then contacted Jacob Hansen's Stake President. Unfortunately for Jacob, it didn't turn out like he had expected.

https://youtu.be/Hk88Ribv-pg?t=2474

Jacob would make a great Scientologist.

Looks like DCP-mini, a.k.a Jacob Hansen has succeeded in getting Julie a “court of love.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... lie_hanks/

Well done Jacob. You’re a shining example of what Mormons can be.

[I Have Questions]

M.G. 2.0's hero, Jacob Hansen really doesn't like Julie Hanks or her counseling methods. In fact Jacob Hansen was so irritated by Julie, that he studied, prayed and even pondered about what he should do. The answer he received from God was to notify Julie's Stake President and to make a series of online videos attacking Julie.

After sending the letter, along with various materials, to Julie's Stake President, Julie's Stake President then contacted Jacob Hansen's Stake President. Unfortunately for Jacob, it didn't turn out like he had expected.

https://youtu.be/Hk88Ribv-pg?t=2474

Jacob would make a great Scientologist.

Looks like DCP-mini, a.k.a Jacob Hansen has succeeded in getting Julie a “court of love.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... lie_hanks/

Well done Jacob. You’re a shining example of what Mormons can be.

The Oaks regime has started.

[Valo]

When Joseph Smith and Company were dictating the Book of Mormon the idea expressed in Isaiah, is the idea God wanted recorded. The fact that Joseph Smith and Co. (because he didn't write it alone) quoted the Bible verbatim to express this idea given by the Spirit doesn't do anything to the truth value of those words.

Joseph Smith was not 'dictating an idea'.

He was (or so he claimed) translating an ancient text written on gold plates in Reformed Egyptian into English. But the translation just happened to be in identical words to the translation made by 'King James's Men' of a completely different text, the Hebrew text of the Book of Isaiah, which they translated into English in about 1604-1611.

More generally, why on earth would a deity make someone in early 19th century upstate New York translate a text written many centuries before that period into the English of 17th century England? It makes no sense. Surely early 19th century American English should have been the logical choice? Of course, if Smith was a faker trying to imitate the 'Bible English' in which his neighbours expected religious ideas to be expressed ... well, it figures.

It was a combination of working with others, a manuscript, and auto dictating, possibly under the influence of psychedelics (I'm only recently exploring this vein so mostly speculation atm).

The idea of who God is and what His purposes are needs to be factored in. Of course you can deny God and there will be nothing to contribute to the conversation. But if you do not, then we have to consider this idea.

If God is responsible for the book coming out, then the ideas expressed in the book become the focus of the book, not how God brought it about. God works with evil to bring about His purposes. Joseph Smith is a fraudster, no doubt, and many discrepancies can be found in his life that evidence this. Nonetheless, the message of the Book of Mormon, regardless of how it came to be, mostly, not all of it, but mostly supports what is taught in the Bible. God wasn't trying to establish a church. He wasn't interested in providing evidence to support Joseph Smith as a prophet or that the church Joseph Smith established is the one true church. God's purposes for the Book of Mormon are not about what Joseph Smith and Co. said. This is where Joseph lost his way, by trying to use the Book of Mormon to prop himself up as a person who needs to be bowed to and who is a middle man between God's authority being invested in a human. No, Joseph Smith was not called to do those things. He wasn't supposed to create a new religion with dogma and a hierarchy of the synagogue of Satan!

Yet the message of the Book of Mormon, insofar as it has not been edited, was meant to come forth as another witness of God's purposes and doctrine of salvation. So the idea that if the message of the Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith is God's authorized prophet and therefore the LDS church must be true is utterly illogical and false.

We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that requires a nuanced approach to these matters.

[bill4long]

Joseph Smith was not 'dictating an idea'.

He was (or so he claimed) translating an ancient text written on gold plates in Reformed Egyptian into English. But the translation just happened to be in identical words to the translation made by 'King James's Men' of a completely different text, the Hebrew text of the Book of Isaiah, which they translated into English in about 1604-1611.

More generally, why on earth would a deity make someone in early 19th century upstate New York translate a text written many centuries before that period into the English of 17th century England? It makes no sense. Surely early 19th century American English should have been the logical choice? Of course, if Smith was a faker trying to imitate the 'Bible English' in which his neighbours expected religious ideas to be expressed ... well, it figures.

It was a combination of working with others, a manuscript, and auto dictating, possibly under the influence of psychedelics (I'm only recently exploring this vein so mostly speculation atm).

The idea of who God is and what His purposes are needs to be factored in. Of course you can deny God and there will be nothing to contribute to the conversation. But if you do not, then we have to consider this idea.

If God is responsible for the book coming out, then the ideas expressed in the book become the focus of the book, not how God brought it about. God works with evil to bring about His purposes. Joseph Smith is a fraudster, no doubt, and many discrepancies can be found in his life that evidence this. Nonetheless, the message of the Book of Mormon, regardless of how it came to be, mostly, not all of it, but mostly supports what is taught in the Bible. God wasn't trying to establish a church. He wasn't interested in providing evidence to support Joseph Smith as a prophet or that the church Joseph Smith established is the one true church. God's purposes for the Book of Mormon are not about what Joseph Smith and Co. said. This is where Joseph lost his way, by trying to use the Book of Mormon to prop himself up as a person who needs to be bowed to and who is a middle man between God's authority being invested in a human. No, Joseph Smith was not called to do those things. He wasn't supposed to create a new religion with dogma and a hierarchy of the synagogue of Satan!

Yet the message of the Book of Mormon, insofar as it has not been edited, was meant to come forth as another witness of God's purposes and doctrine of salvation. So the idea that if the message of the Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith is God's authorized prophet and therefore the LDS church must be true is utterly illogical and false.

We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that requires a nuanced approach to these matters.

If Christianity is true, then the Apostle Paul said everything that needed to be said. It's quite simple, really. Not that I'm a believer.

[Valo]

It was a combination of working with others, a manuscript, and auto dictating, possibly under the influence of psychedelics (I'm only recently exploring this vein so mostly speculation atm).

The idea of who God is and what His purposes are needs to be factored in. Of course you can deny God and there will be nothing to contribute to the conversation. But if you do not, then we have to consider this idea.

If God is responsible for the book coming out, then the ideas expressed in the book become the focus of the book, not how God brought it about. God works with evil to bring about His purposes. Joseph Smith is a fraudster, no doubt, and many discrepancies can be found in his life that evidence this. Nonetheless, the message of the Book of Mormon, regardless of how it came to be, mostly, not all of it, but mostly supports what is taught in the Bible. God wasn't trying to establish a church. He wasn't interested in providing evidence to support Joseph Smith as a prophet or that the church Joseph Smith established is the one true church. God's purposes for the Book of Mormon are not about what Joseph Smith and Co. said. This is where Joseph lost his way, by trying to use the Book of Mormon to prop himself up as a person who needs to be bowed to and who is a middle man between God's authority being invested in a human. No, Joseph Smith was not called to do those things. He wasn't supposed to create a new religion with dogma and a hierarchy of the synagogue of Satan!

Yet the message of the Book of Mormon, insofar as it has not been edited, was meant to come forth as another witness of God's purposes and doctrine of salvation. So the idea that if the message of the Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith is God's authorized prophet and therefore the LDS church must be true is utterly illogical and false.

We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that requires a nuanced approach to these matters.

If Christianity is true, then the Apostle Paul said everything that needed to be said. It's quite simple, really. Not that I'm a believer.

I disagree. Paul does not speak clearly about the indwelling of Christ. Paul focuses on "churches" and respecting church status, hierarchy, which are all false ideas. Paul did not teach clearly about the Antichrist and the role of the Antichrist.

Paul doesn't barely touch on what Isaiah says and Isaiah is very important.

Plus, it's also about having additional witnesses to God and Christ, not a witness for men and their churches.

[Chap]

The idea of who God is and what His purposes are needs to be factored in. Of course you can deny God and there will be nothing to contribute to the conversation. But if you do not, then we have to consider this idea.

If God is responsible for the book coming out, then the ideas expressed in the book become the focus of the book, not how God brought it about. God works with evil to bring about His purposes. Joseph Smith is a fraudster, no doubt, and many discrepancies can be found in his life that evidence this. Nonetheless, the message of the Book of Mormon, regardless of how it came to be, mostly, not all of it, but mostly supports what is taught in the Bible. God wasn't trying to establish a church. He wasn't interested in providing evidence to support Joseph Smith as a prophet or that the church Joseph Smith established is the one true church. God's purposes for the Book of Mormon are not about what Joseph Smith and Co. said. This is where Joseph lost his way, by trying to use the Book of Mormon to prop himself up as a person who needs to be bowed to and who is a middle man between God's authority being invested in a human. No, Joseph Smith was not called to do those things. He wasn't supposed to create a new religion with dogma and a hierarchy of the synagogue of Satan!

Yet the message of the Book of Mormon, insofar as it has not been edited, was meant to come forth as another witness of God's purposes and doctrine of salvation. So the idea that if the message of the Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith is God's authorized prophet and therefore the LDS church must be true is utterly illogical and false.

We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that requires a nuanced approach to these matters.

You really seem to have an amazing confidence in your ability to tell us what this thing you call 'God' is up to. I wonder that your evidential basis for this confidence might be?

[Valo]

The idea of who God is and what His purposes are needs to be factored in. Of course you can deny God and there will be nothing to contribute to the conversation. But if you do not, then we have to consider this idea.

If God is responsible for the book coming out, then the ideas expressed in the book become the focus of the book, not how God brought it about. God works with evil to bring about His purposes. Joseph Smith is a fraudster, no doubt, and many discrepancies can be found in his life that evidence this. Nonetheless, the message of the Book of Mormon, regardless of how it came to be, mostly, not all of it, but mostly supports what is taught in the Bible. God wasn't trying to establish a church. He wasn't interested in providing evidence to support Joseph Smith as a prophet or that the church Joseph Smith established is the one true church. God's purposes for the Book of Mormon are not about what Joseph Smith and Co. said. This is where Joseph lost his way, by trying to use the Book of Mormon to prop himself up as a person who needs to be bowed to and who is a middle man between God's authority being invested in a human. No, Joseph Smith was not called to do those things. He wasn't supposed to create a new religion with dogma and a hierarchy of the synagogue of Satan!

Yet the message of the Book of Mormon, insofar as it has not been edited, was meant to come forth as another witness of God's purposes and doctrine of salvation. So the idea that if the message of the Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith is God's authorized prophet and therefore the LDS church must be true is utterly illogical and false.

We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that requires a nuanced approach to these matters.

You really seem to have an amazing confidence in your ability to tell us what this thing you call 'God' is up to. I wonder that your evidential basis for this confidence might be?

When you love someone you learn about them. You pay attention to them. You find out about what they like, what they desire, what they want. In order to do this you have to spend time with the person you love. You have to talk to them. Listen to them. Appreciate and respect them. Pay attention to their words and ideas. You take time out of your day for them. Then you find out and learn all about them and your knowledge about your Love will be based on experience and observations.

Good luck!

[Morley]

When you love someone you learn about them. You pay attention to them. You find out about what they like, what they desire, what they want. In order to do this you have to spend time with the person you love. You have to talk to them. Listen to them. Appreciate and respect them. Pay attention to their words and ideas. You take time out of your day for them. Then you find out and learn all about them and your knowledge about your Love will be based on experience and observations.

Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you

Every single day
And every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you

[Chap]

In response to Valo's post telling us in some detail how Smith misunderstood what this thing he calls 'God' really wanted Smith to do, I wrote

You really seem to have an amazing confidence in your ability to tell us what this thing you call 'God' is up to. I wonder that your evidential basis for this confidence might be?

To which Valo replied:

When you love someone you learn about them. You pay attention to them. You find out about what they like, what they desire, what they want. In order to do this you have to spend time with the person you love. You have to talk to them. Listen to them. Appreciate and respect them. Pay attention to their words and ideas. You take time out of your day for them. Then you find out and learn all about them and your knowledge about your Love will be based on experience and observations.

Good luck!

If Valo is talking about the what most English speakers imagine when they use the term 'God', he is referring to the supposed creator of the vast universe and the laws that govern it, the source of the moral order, and the unfathomable and eternal basis of all reality. And it turns out that understanding the will of this supposed entity is no more difficult than calling on an elderly relative for regular chats.

If this is the level that theists have descended to, there seems little point in arguing with such people.

[Kishkumen]

If this is the level that theists have descended to, there seems little point in arguing with such people.

Agreed. It is best not to argue over such things. People who choose to believe such things ought not to set out to correct others based on their subjective experience of God.