Interpreter apologists wrestle with Nephi’s transoceanic vessel

[dastardly stem]

You are proving my point. Critics are duty bound to ignore the evidence that leans in the direction of Joseph not having the ability to do what was done in the Book of Mormon’s production. Folks such as Rasmussen and Hales come along a show that the Book of Mormon and its origins are not quite as explainable…naturalistically…as they would like to suppose. Folks that have thoroughly studied the translation process and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and put forth strong reasoning and evidence to support divine origins are looked at as being simpletons in the sense that these ‘dupes’ look at the process as being directed by God. Again, with good reason.

The critics come back with “God, yeah, right.”

It’s a nonstarter.

So there you have it. At the end of the day you have God believers and those that don’t believe in God going the rounds. Over and over and over again. Ad nauseam.

I’m perfectly fine with the fact that you see the Book of Mormon as being non miraculous. But I think that a critic is also, if they are being honest, obligated to see the points made by folks such as Rasmussen, Hales, and others, as having merit. Enough merit to actually be reason to see the Book of Mormon as the product of the divine.

You ask what is the big deal about the Book of Mormon anyway? It’s rather obvious. It’s another testament of Jesus Christ and his crucifixion and resurrection. A doctrinal position that has come under attack and is believed in by fewer and fewer people today.

And that is a big deal.

The Book of Mormon claims to be an artifact from the ancient world brought forth and translated in our day to testify to the world that Jesus is indeed the Christ, and that God has a plan to save and redeem almost all of His children to the extent that they believe in and follow the teachings and commandments given by Him.

We are not alone.

Some have the faith to believe and others don’t. This has always been the case.

Regards,
MG

You are fooling yourself if you think critics haven't considered the evidence that apologists put forward. This is put your fingers in your ears and hum yourself a tune type of stuff. The Book of Mormon is not a testament of Jesus until it can be shown to be taken seriously. no one outside Mormonism would suggest the book is a testament of Jesus. It's simply a mythical story written by a believer in Jesus. Nothing more. No amount of wishful thinking or bad apologetics is going to change that.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's simply a mythical story …

I’d quibble a bit with the terminology. It was a novel written to be sold as such until it was obvious no one would buy the rights to it.

- Doc

[Dr Moore]

Did someone just cite Rasmussen’s pornography as evidence for the Book of Mormon not being naturalistically explainable? LOL

[MG 2.0]

You are fooling yourself if you think critics haven't considered the evidence that apologists put forward. This is put your fingers in your ears and hum yourself a tune type of stuff. The Book of Mormon is not a testament of Jesus until it can be shown to be taken seriously. no one outside Mormonism would suggest the book is a testament of Jesus. It's simply a mythical story written by a believer in Jesus. Nothing more. No amount of wishful thinking or bad apologetics is going to change that.

You say you have.

I think you lost your way in the process.

I’d have to personally meet you and find out WHO you are before I would take you seriously. Especially where so much rides on it.

You may have other reasons for your so called disbelief.

As it is, I’ve looked at the evidence, pro and con, and have come to a different place.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You are fooling yourself if you think critics haven't considered the evidence that apologists put forward. This is put your fingers in your ears and hum yourself a tune type of stuff. The Book of Mormon is not a testament of Jesus until it can be shown to be taken seriously. no one outside Mormonism would suggest the book is a testament of Jesus. It's simply a mythical story written by a believer in Jesus. Nothing more. No amount of wishful thinking or bad apologetics is going to change that.

You say you have.

I think you lost your way in the process.

I’d have to personally meet you and find out WHO you are before I would take you seriously. Especially where so much rides on it.

You may have other reasons for your so called disbelief.

As it is, I’ve looked at the evidence, pro and con, and have come to a different place.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You say you have.

I think you lost your way in the process.

I’d have to personally meet you and find out WHO you are before I would take you seriously. Especially where so much rides on it.

You may have other reasons for your so called disbelief.

As it is, I’ve looked at the evidence, pro and con, and have come to a different place.

Regards,
MG

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=155436&start=90

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

…If you want others to see the book as valuable, explain how its valuable. It's not valuable because Joseph claimed it was from God. It has to actually mean something….

You are proving my point. Critics are duty bound to ignore the evidence that leans in the direction….

Folks that have thoroughly studied the translation process and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and put forth strong reasoning and evidence to support divine origins are looked at as being simpletons….

But I think that a critic is also, if they are being honest, obligated to see the points made by folks such as Rasmussen, Hales, and others, as having merit. Enough merit to actually be reason to see the Book of Mormon as the product of the divine….

I find the above to be a fascinating bit of misdirection and non sequitur. The thread is attempting to discuss factual details and elements of writing, but now we have multiple statements above that researchers are “duty bound” to be dishonest in their assessments. Not only that, this argument then switches sides and says that “honesty” requires one side to believe the other. Why would this requirement only go one direction? What does this have to do with the topic? Is this honestly how this poster thinks research is done?

The Book of Mormon claims to be an artifact from the ancient world brought forth and translated in our day….

This is obviously not true. This thread alone has insurmountable evidence stating otherwise, and it’s just one of dozens.

Some have the faith to believe and others don’t….

At last, something we can agree upon.

[Marcus]

Did someone just cite Rasmussen’s pornography as evidence for the Book of Mormon not being naturalistically explainable? LOL

Seriously, right?

[Rivendale]

Did someone just cite Rasmussen’s pornography as evidence for the Book of Mormon not being naturalistically explainable? LOL

Seriously, right?

Don't forget Hales was mentioned. The guy that was watching a train and came up with his "Joseph and the gap" monumental expose regarding the missing naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. Never mind Bill Davis and his book Visions In a Seer Stone. Never mind Dan Vogel's book The Making of a Prophet.

[drumdude]

But I think that a critic is also, if they are being honest, obligated to see the points made by folks such as Rasmussen, Hales, and others, as having merit. Enough merit to actually be reason to see the Book of Mormon as the product of the divine.

LDS apologists can't get their scholarly work taken seriously by any non Mormons. This is not due to anything except scholarly incompetence. It's the same reason a flat earth journal wouldn't get taken seriously. Mormonism has an enormous burden of proof to overcome and Mormon apologists do not come anywhere close to meeting that burden.