The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_Lemmie]

That is the copyright page.

Speaking of copyright. Why did he try to sell it?

I am not aware that he did.

You really should, then, enroll in Professor Darth J's classes, the series called Know Your Religion.

Wasn't there an adult Sunday School class, for investigators and newbies, called that? Although I'm sure that version bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Professor Darth J would produce!

[_spotlight]

It's simply a recognition that I don't know all there is to know.

And so you use that excuse to denounce what we do know, nice, simply because it disproves your fantasy world.

I'm not anti-science.

Yes you are. You pretend that there is something missing that will Trump our current knowledge. All you really do is display your ignorance of well established facts that are not controversial in the least and are well beyond the possibility of being overthrown by new knowledge yet to be discovered.

I'm not anti-knowledge, with the caveat that I'm open to the knowledge and instruction that God might have to give.

In other words the BS that Joe made up in the D&C Trump's any knowledge we have gathered that contradicts it. You are nothing more than a dogmatist.

You define having a broken heart to be coming to god which you can't do if you accept knowledge that we have acquired so you dismiss that knowledge to maintain your cult's dogma. Sad little mind.

Let's pretend for a minute...on your part...that this is true. What do you think God means by "intelligence"?

If there were a god and he were intelligent, then what he'd mean by the use of the word would be according to the definition of the word in our language. Now that happens to be:

the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria - Merriam Webster

But from the 1828 dictionary the definition we have is simply understanding.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dicti ... telligence

The application of this verse has always been to encourage learning by your church:
https://www.LDS.org/youth/video/the-glo ... e?lang=eng

[_honorentheos]

MG -

What bothers me is that you thought the talk was discussion-worthy when it didn't attempt to present a position based on discussion.

It's the discussion equivilent of this -



with your post being the equivilent of someone saying, "See, we're number 1!"

Ok. Of course it appeals to YOU. You believe the propoganda it presented.

So one has to really wonder why you shared it?

[_zerinus]

I am not aware that he did.

Why not?

There is still a lot of confusion and uncertainty surrounding it.

[_mentalgymnast]

...And so you use that excuse...

...your fantasy world...

...You pretend...

...All you really do...

...you dismiss that knowledge...

...Sad little mind...

It appears that you have quickly evolved/devolved into the oft used practice of pseudo psychoanalysis by making sweeping global statements and accusations.

See my sig line link and pick the correct number(s).

You're making stuff up. That's my cue that the thread is devolving into useless/fruitless innuendo/finger pointing and there may not be much else useful to say/do here.

Let's pretend for a minute...on your part...that this is true. What do you think God means by "intelligence"?

If there were a god...he'd mean by the use of the word would be according to the definition of the word in our language.

Putting words in the mouth of the Big Guy now, huh?

Is there a problem with the definition, “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth”?

Regards,
MG

[_Sanctorian]

There is still a lot of confusion and uncertainty surrounding it.

Only to someone trying to justify their belief system.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG...your post being the equivilent of someone saying, "See, we're number 1!"

No. Not in the sense that you might be implying. More along the line of "where much is given, much is expected." And:

...a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; … it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life”

If number one means easy street and some kind of cake walk into the eternal realms, then being "number one" would be kind of cool. The fact is, being a member of the church isn't a cakewalk. It's a LOT of work and sacrifice. As you may remember if you were a member.

I know that I don't go around bragging "We're number one!" Yay...now, get to work slave.

So what is there to brag about in that?

You believe the propoganda it presented.

Yeah, it makes sense to me overall.

So one has to really wonder why you shared it?

I'm totally OK with someone pointing out that a believer is expressing their feelings in regards to their faith. But to either ridicule and/or name that practice as something inferior and/or inapplicable to true knowledge I think is a bit disingenuous. But I can see why you and others might see/think otherwise.

If you were to 'bear your testimony' of the power of love and the good that it can provide/do in the world, I would be the last one to diss and/or disagree with that or say that it was inappropriate to share. Although there might be some folks that have little or no experience with love and its effects...in fact all they know is the opposite...that might.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

Re: My question why Joseph Smith Jr. tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon.

I am not aware that he did.

Why not?

There is still a lot of confusion and uncertainty surrounding it.

Jussec. First you say that you're not aware that Joseph Smith Jr. tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon and now...you're saying there's confusion and uncertainty surrounding it?

Why should there be any confusion and uncertainty about a revelation that Joseph Smith Jr. received and which he himself documented in writing?

The church knows this.

I know this.

Why don't you know this?

[_Lemmie]

with your post being the equivilent of someone saying, "See, we're number 1!"

Ok. Of course it appeals to YOU. You believe the propoganda it presented.

So one has to really wonder why you shared it?

It really was old school, egregious propaganda, right? I think that's what shocked me. This was a devotional, given at BYU, so we have an entire arena of college students, graduate students, Professors and staff--a large collection of fairly well educated people. This talk, however, was perplexing in its simplistic approach, its regurgitation of things that have clearly been disproved, and a lack of logic that was just embarrassing to read. I can't imagine having to sit through that and keep a straight face.

At first I thought this was an old talk, but no, its late 2016. Are they really going to keep saying its either all historical or it is a fraud? Except for non-discerning listeners like mentalgymnast, that must cause a great deal of cognitive dissonance to anyone who has even casually looked at the research.

[_honorentheos]

MG...your post being the equivilent of someone saying, "See, we're number 1!"

No. Not in the sense that you might be implying. More along the line of "where much is given, much is expected." And:

...a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; … it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life”

If number one means easy street and some kind of cake walk into the eternal realms, then being "number one" would be kind of cool. The fact is, being a member of the church isn't a cakewalk. It's a LOT of work and sacrifice. As you may remember if you were a member.

I know that I don't go around bragging "We're number one!" Yay...now, get to work slave.

So what is there to brag about in that?

Hmm. Let me put this a different way.

The article you shared in the OP set up a strawman argument. That being, it presented very simple representations of possible authorship theories for the Book of Mormon, makes very simplistic arguments for why these simple theories can't be true, then makes a statement that this standard makes a predetermined condition true.

It's cheerleading. A pep rally. Inviting others who aren't fans of your team in isn't an invitation to discuss the merits of any particular position. It was an invitation to a pep rally you enjoyed.


so...

So one has to really wonder why you shared it?

To which you replied -

I'm totally OK with someone pointing out that a believer is expressing their feelings in regards to their faith. But to either ridicule and/or name that practice as something inferior and/or inapplicable to true knowledge I think is a bit disingenuous. But I can see why you and others might see/think otherwise.

If you invite someone to a pep rally and they point out it was a pep rally it's not good faith behavior to claim they are ridiculing your beliefs. I'm pointing out a problem with your actions. The strawman arguments presented are being put to the flame in the thread because of what they are.

You can't be sincerely bothered that people didn't respond to the pep rally invitation in a positive way who aren't fans of your team.

So, again, one has to wonder why you chose to share it. You clearly knew it was a pep rally. You clearly knew you invited non-fans to participate in it. It can't be that you foresaw this as creating interesting dialog or advancing the conversation regarding the Book of Mormon.