Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

Oh wow, do i love auto-correct.

I purposefully wrote that. No auto correct.

Marcus, you’re wasting bandwidth.

Regards,
MG

You're kidding. You "purposefully wrote" this?

Apparently you think that this place we call home came into being from start to chocolate ice cream...

Sure.

[I Have Questions]

You didn’t properly read and comprehend the humour within Morley’s post, did you?

What point or points, specifically, within Hansens video do you think will give an LDS critic a “hissy fit”? If there’s too many points, just pick maybe the one you think is the most likely, and explain it to the audience on your thread.

Hi IHAQ, for fun I scrolled through the debate and stopped at a random point and listened to what was being discussed. At the 1:18 mark and moving into the next couple or so minutes you will hear Jacob mention that Joseph didn’t have any real idea where the narrative in the Book of Mormon took place. He was open to various theories.

Then if we do further study we find:

On September 8, 1841, John Bernhisel, a recent Latter-day Saint convert in New York City, wrote to Joseph Smith informing him that he had sent him a copy of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan “as a token of my regard for you as a Prophet of the Lord.”[4] On November 16, 1842, Joseph Smith responded to Bernhisel and thanked him for the gift:
I received your kind present by the hand of Er [Elder] Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.[5]

https://rsc.BYU.edu/approaching-antiqui ... ook-Mormon

If you read the article by Roper you will see that the original criticisms of the Book of Mormon were in some respects put aside through the research and writing that came after the Book of Mormon was published.

This has also happened relative to other Book of Mormon concerns of the early critics that were later alleviated/explained through later research.

Point being that in this particular debate I linked you to there are instances throughout the video in which Jacob brings up things that are worth pursuing in regards to Book of Mormon apologetics and study. This being just one.

My expectation, as I’ve already mentioned, is that there will be some that read this thread (not you, of course) that will watch the video links and find some information that they can then do further research. I would hate for anyone to come into this forum and rely solely upon the board critics exclusively for their information as it is pretty much all one sided.

That’s why I earlier said that more information, at least in regards to Book of Mormon Studies is always better than less. I would suggest to lurkers and other seekers to seek out information from as many different sources as possible and not rely upon my word or the words of critics who in many cases, at least on this board, don’t even believe in God. They see all this as hocus pocus at the outset.

BYU Religious Studies Center is a good resource.

Some folks watching the debate between Jacob and the representative that is well read in Catholic belief and doctrine may not have even been aware that Joseph was interested in various views in regards to where the Book of Mormon lands might have been located. He didn’t seem to have had any certain geography in mind when the translation process occurred.

Anyway, there is just one part and parcel of the debate in which a point was made that is/was worth further exploration by those seeking truth rather than soundbites from critics.

Regards,
MG

I’m not sure how Bernhisel sending Smith an account of some explorers exploits in Central America is going to be valuable to you. Firstly, did Smith ever take a position on where the Book of Mormon events supposedly happened? He didn’t other than to claim the hill in upstate New York was the actual Hill Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon - which rather rebuts your Bernhisel reference. Not only that, here’s the Church’s position on the subject:

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng
You really shouldn’t be leading potential investigators down irrelevant dead-ends like this. Also, if that’s your best example from it of something that will cause critics of the Church to have a hissy-fit…

[I Have Questions]

Hi IHAQ, for fun I scrolled through the debate and stopped at a random point and listened to what was being discussed. At the 1:18 mark and moving into the next couple or so minutes you will hear Jacob mention that Joseph didn’t have any real idea where the narrative in the Book of Mormon took place.

So, you had to randomly scroll through a debate you "already listened to", to find a talking point. I put "already listened to" in quotes, because it's absolutely clear you didn't.

He admits he only got as far as 1 minute 18 seconds in to it. That’s as far as he’s listened!

[MG 2.0]

I purposefully wrote that. No auto correct.

Marcus, you’re wasting bandwidth.

Regards,
MG

You're kidding. You "purposefully wrote that"? Right.

Yes I did, it’s a sideways look at the anthropic principle/Goldilocks effect.

A lot of stuff had to happen before you eat that bowl of ice cream!

Marcus, you very rarely act upon my invitations to actually participate in the ‘meat’ of any discussion. You’re almost always out there on the periphery trying score rhetorical points without engaging.

That’s boring.

Lurkers, if you’re reading this…this is what Marcus does in order to move the actual discussion to way back on another page. Her form of ‘erasure’ or cancellation.

Go back and read the discussion. Look at the links.

https://www.youtube.com/live/9V_N0cRqzQ ... WZ5dU4sNbh

https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/tad-r-ca ... god-given/

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’m not sure how Bernhisel sending Smith an account of some explorers exploits in Central America is going to be valuable to you.

See my response to Marcus after my response to you.

My point stands.

Although I can’t/wouldn’t expect that you will find any value there.

I would invite others to read what I actually said.

I don’t enjoy having my words either ignored or twisted or taken out of context.

Typical critic modus operandi.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So, you had to randomly scroll through a debate you "already listened to", to find a talking point. I put "already listened to" in quotes, because it's absolutely clear you didn't.

He admits he only got as far as 1 minute 18 seconds in to it. That’s as far as he’s listened!

BS.

You don’t have anything to offer. Two or three pages back I said the same thing. I stand by that statement.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Alrighty, that’s enough for now. Check back later.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Alrighty, that’s enough for now. Check back later.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...you very rarely act upon my invitations to actually participate in the ‘meat’ of any discussion. You’re almost always out there on the periphery trying score rhetorical points without engaging...

Yet another self-description.

[Chap]

So apparently you’re not going to take me up on it. Apparently you think that this place we call home came into being from start to chocolate ice cream in a purely undirected and random fashion.

I’m simply saying, “I don’t believe it”. Your belief in ultimate nothingness.

These views you ascribe to me are simply your own imagination. I don't have any beliefs of that kind. I confine my beliefs to cases where I have some solid evidence that something is likely to be the case. Where I don't, I have no problem in simply saying that I just don't know. Can't you handle that? I am fascinated by what science has discovered and is in the process of discovering about the remote past of our universe, but I lose no sleep over the fact that there are likely to be an infinity of other fascinating things that we are as yet far from knowing and perhaps may never know. Still, as a bunch of hairless apes on a planet going round a merely average star, we are not doing too badly at all in that department.

The only thing that might keep me awake at night is when someone I know and love is going through a difficult time, or when I hear of innocent people denied safety or justice.

For me, I choose God the Creator. Ultimate purpose.

What you choose or do not choose has nothing to do with what is in fact the case. But hey, as I already said, if that's what you need to get through life, feel free. Just don't come here and expect people not to point out the difficulties with that kind of imaginary solution to problems that only exist in your head.

All voices are welcome here.

Well, it is one of Shades' rules that we can't tell anybody that they are UNwelcome, whatever we may feel about the value of their contributions (or otherwise).