Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

Hi MG, I’m bumping these questions for a second time, as you seem to have missed them. Again. Please answer them.

Sure.Although if you had read what I’ve already said, I’ve alluded to and/or given what I believe to be an adequate answer.

Be that as it may, no, a testimony does not need to be face to face in order to be a valid witness by the one sharing that witness. That testimony might come through various means.

In my conversation with the two ladies that were witnessing for their Jehovah’s Witness faith they didn’t share any scripture or really bring up much at all in regards to their faith. Basically we talked about the fact that the weather was beautiful along with the surf. I mentioned I was LDS visiting from Utah.

And that was about it.

Honestly, I was expecting they might share a scripture or two but they apparently didn’t feel it necessary, for whatever reason, to do so.

Regards,
MG

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?

[Marcus]

It's a known and universally accepted fact that the above statements about "our western tribes of Indians" are blatantly and completely untrue.

What a source.
Any response?

Oliver wrote this.

He had his opinions as did others, including Joseph.

Regards,
MG

And again you truncated my post, and completely changed the point. Here's how you excerpt, and keep the point:

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 ...

Presented in the link above, as evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon:

[excerpt]
...Some historical details: book written by ancestors of Indians, translated into English, duration of plates’ burial in ground, Israelite ancestry of Indians....

It's a known and universally accepted fact that the above statements about "our western tribes of Indians" are blatantly and completely untrue.

What a source.

Your disingenuousness is noted. I'm assuming it's because you can't support your link, or discuss it, and most likely didn't even read it.

[MG 2.0]

Sure.Although if you had read what I’ve already said, I’ve alluded to and/or given what I believe to be an adequate answer.

Be that as it may, no, a testimony does not need to be face to face in order to be a valid witness by the one sharing that witness. That testimony might come through various means.

In my conversation with the two ladies that were witnessing for their Jehovah’s Witness faith they didn’t share any scripture or really bring up much at all in regards to their faith. Basically we talked about the fact that the weather was beautiful along with the surf. I mentioned I was LDS visiting from Utah.

And that was about it.

Honestly, I was expecting they might share a scripture or two but they apparently didn’t feel it necessary, for whatever reason, to do so.

Regards,
MG

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. They were middle age or older and I think they had already had experiences with Mormons (one or both of them may have even said they either knew Mormons or had friends that were Mormons…I can’t remember one way or the other). At least that’s the feeling I got as I was talking to them.

I’m hoping that when we left each other after having had a nice conversation that they would come away from it thinking, “OK, that was a nice guy, good conversation.” I certainly went on my way thinking the same of those two and thought to myself, “If their church is a place in which two people like this can find a spiritual family, then more power to them”.

In my mind, a faith community is a good place to be for many people. They will find the right fit. The community that works for them.

It’s not like I was going to stand there and preach hell fire and damnation.

Would you have done so back in the day?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Oliver wrote this.

He had his opinions as did others, including Joseph.

Regards,
MG

And again you truncated my post, and completely changed the point. Here's how you excerpt, and keep the point:

Presented in the link above, as evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon:

[excerpt]
...Some historical details: book written by ancestors of Indians, translated into English, duration of plates’ burial in ground, Israelite ancestry of Indians....

It's a known and universally accepted fact that the above statements about "our western tribes of Indians" are blatantly and completely untrue.

What a source.

Your disingenuousness is noted. I'm assuming it's because you can't support your link, or discuss it, and most likely didn't even read it.

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

[Gadianton]

I think PG came as close to my own thoughts as I could hope anyone could. I’m not questioning the sincerity of anyone who believes what they believe.

That's not quite going to work MG. You're trying to save your position after the fact. Here's one of the many things you said:

But I haven’t heard one. I was recently running along the Ventura State Beach promenade/boardwalk along the beautiful coastline. There were a couple of Jehovah’s Witness ladies with a display set up there. After I finished my run I came back and had a nice chat with them actually waiting for them to offer up their testimony.

If you saw things like PG does, then you wouldn't have been "waiting for them to offer up their testimony".

[Morley]

Not true. And I’m not minimizing Jehovah’s Witnesses witnessing.

Good to hear. So you're saying that a JW's spiritual witness (or testimony, or knowledge) of their faith has as much validity and likely truth value as your own. I'm assuming that you would extend that to all people.

You think that your version of Christ was the first to introduce personal prayer, as well as the type of prayer that addresses God as father…

Yes, I haven’t seen anything presented that would cause me to think otherwise.

How could you, when you haven't looked anywhere?

You've not shown anything to suggest it's true. That's my point. You make a statement with nothing to back it up but your own feelings. This is not LDS doctrine. No LDS scripture suggests this. Like your testimony, you've somehow come to believe it, so you think it must be true.

--not coincidentally methods of 'best practice' praying that your religion endorses.

You have to realize, Morley, that from a believer’s point of view this would make sense…that Jesus would reintroduce/reinforce what he taught his disciples to do in regards to prayer.

Now it's "reintroduce" rather than introduce. No, it doesn't make sense. It might make sense to you as a believer. That doesn't mean that it makes sense to all believers, let alone to those of other faiths.

To you, Mormons have the one best method…

They do believe that Jesus taught his disciples how to pray and that this same Jesus has instructed his Saints on how to pray.

But they don't believe that Jesus invented personal prayer or was the first in history to suggest a prayer to a 'father' God. Suggesting this is ridiculous.

That you have nothing but your naïve wishes-that-it-were-true to back this up doesn't seem to matter. Ever.

Au contraire.

Then you'll show me.

You see this attitude of willful, conscious ignorance as an act of devotion.

Armchair quarterbacking. You’ve said three things in a row that are verifiably untrue. But I’m not going to argue the point with you except to say that isn’t it wonderful to be in a position where you can judge others and be the arbiter of truth?

Actually, I was giving you the benifit of the doubt. If you do it as an act of devotion, it could be somewhat understood. If it's not coming from a place of service to your faith, then it's just malicious.

To others, it comes across as what it really is: a type of woeful, religious bigotry.

Nice job at setting up a strawman.

I don't think you know what that means.

Read what PG said. He’s light years closer to the truth than you are, Morley.

Oh, I agree. 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.

[Marcus]

And again you truncated my post, and completely changed the point. Here's how you excerpt, and keep the point:
----
Your disingenuousness is noted. I'm assuming it's because you can't support your link, or discuss it, and most likely didn't even read it.

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.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

MG, you just got boom roasted!

[MG 2.0]

I think PG came as close to my own thoughts as I could hope anyone could. I’m not questioning the sincerity of anyone who believes what they believe.

That's not quite going to work MG. You're trying to save your position after the fact. Here's one of the many things you said:

But I haven’t heard one. I was recently running along the Ventura State Beach promenade/boardwalk along the beautiful coastline. There were a couple of Jehovah’s Witness ladies with a display set up there. After I finished my run I came back and had a nice chat with them actually waiting for them to offer up their testimony.

If you saw things like PG does, then you wouldn't have been "waiting for them to offer up their testimony".

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?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Not true. And I’m not minimizing Jehovah’s Witnesses witnessing.

Good to hear. So you're saying that a JW's spiritual witness (or testimony, or knowledge) of their faith has as much validity and likely truth value as your own. I'm assuming that you would extend that to all people.

Yes, I haven’t seen anything presented that would cause me to think otherwise.

How could you, when you haven't looked anywhere?

You've not shown anything to suggest it's true. That's my point. You make a statement with nothing to back it up but your own feelings. This is not LDS doctrine. No LDS scripture suggests this. Like your testimony, you've somehow come to believe it, so you think it must be true.

You have to realize, Morley, that from a believer’s point of view this would make sense…that Jesus would reintroduce/reinforce what he taught his disciples to do in regards to prayer.

Now it's "reintroduce" rather than introduce. No, it doesn't make sense. It might make sense to you as a believer. That doesn't mean that it makes sense to all believers, let alone to those of other faiths.

They do believe that Jesus taught his disciples how to pray and that this same Jesus has instructed his Saints on how to pray.

But they don't believe that Jesus invented personal prayer or was the first in history to suggest a prayer to a 'father' God. Suggesting this is ridiculous.

Au contraire.

Then you'll show me.

Armchair quarterbacking. You’ve said three things in a row that are verifiably untrue. But I’m not going to argue the point with you except to say that isn’t it wonderful to be in a position where you can judge others and be the arbiter of truth?

Actually, I was giving you the benifit of the doubt. If you do it as an act of devotion, it could be somewhat understood. If it's not coming from a place of service to your faith, then it's just malicious.

Nice job at setting up a strawman.

I don't think you know what that means.

Read what PG said. He’s light years closer to the truth than you are, Morley.

Oh, I agree. 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.

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