Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

I’m happy to listen to the sincere face to face testimony of a Jehovah’s Witness. 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 Jehovahs’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.

Never happened. Maybe a ‘one off’.

Over the years, however, I’ve talked with a number of missionaries from their church. No testimonies.

Seems to be more common with missionaries from the LDS Church.

But that’s my limited experience.

Regards,
MG

Does a testimony have to be “face to face” for you to consider it?

How did they react to the sincere testimony that you bore to them?

Hi MG, just bumping these questions that you seem to have overlooked…

[I Have Questions]

His question was hypothetical. If a non-Mormon were to use your trademark method to a different end what would you do?



You held the actual expectation that a Jehovah's Witness would bear witness of their beliefs in Mormon lingo, and because they didn't, you were pleasantly reminded yet again how true Mormonism is.

For some reason IHAQ, earlier, was referencing Jehovah’s Witness’s as having some kind of compatible ‘testifying’ similar to Mormon missionaries. Go back and read what he wrote. My response was to him as I said I didn’t see a similar ‘testifying’ of truth.

You’re reframing what I wrote. Stop it. I didn’t mention Mormon Missionaries, nor compatibility. I asked a simple question that Mormons might want to consider asking themselves - “Why isn’t the sincere testimony of a Jehovah’s Witness, true?” You haven’t answered.

[Marcus]

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

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.

But, and now dear Marcus, you already know this... if you testify in words that contravenes and refutes the direct non-historical, contradiction of being entirely wrong, and so, it is correct after all. And for bonus feature #334 in the series, if you testify it is the most correct book of any on earth because Joseph Smith hisself said so, why... you are close to the Covenant path and thinking Celestial! Man you would be happenin'. You would be burnin' the tracks, trumpin' the Republicans, Jimmyin' the jury, and crammin' the critics.

My dear Philo, I do, I do! But I am weak and continue using my brain when mentalgymnastics tell me to Just Let It Go....

[Morley]

We flew to San Fransisco this weekend to surprise a daughter for her birthday. After dinner, we called an Uber for the fifteen minute ride back to our lodgings. We were picked up by a quiet young man who thanked us for the business--because our route was on the his way to his prayers at the mosque. Arriving at the motel, the driver asked us to wait a minute, while he dug in a box in his trunk. Without a word, he sheepishly handed me a copy of the Quran, got back in his car, and drove off. MG would have been disappointed in the fellow's apparent lack of a testimony.

Not so. I think that was a beautiful gesture on his part.

Regards,
MG

The point was that you wouldn't have considered the young man's actions to be a type of testimony, the same way you just minimized the Jehovah's Witnesses witnessing. 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--not coincidentally methods of 'best practice' praying that your religion endorses. To you, Mormons have the one best method and every other faith is somehow trying to imitate LDS Church, as it has evolved through the ages. That you have nothing but your naïve wishes-that-it-were-true to back this up doesn't seem to matter. Ever.

You see this attitude of willful, conscious ignorance as an act of devotion. To others, it comes across as what it really is: a type of woeful, religious bigotry.

[Gadianton]

Go back and read what he wrote

A good question for Mormons is, “Why isn’t the sincere testimony of a Jehovah’s Witness, true?”

IHAQ, earlier, was referencing Jehovah’s Witness’s as having some kind of compatible ‘testifying’ similar to Mormon missionaries

For the vast majority of humanity, there could be nothing more similar than a Mormon or a JW knocking on a door and unloading their beliefs. But as that ancient saying goes, "of all things, Mormonism is the measure," your measuring rod is always whatever it is Mormons do. You can accept this:

Without a word, he sheepishly handed me a copy of the Quran,

because:

That’s not anything against what they might feel in their hearts, it’s just that I haven’t really heard them come out and express their deepest intuitions or feelings.

You can imagine a person with deep feelings and intuitions quietly handing someone a book about their beliefs.

JWs base their their "witness" on logic. They believe, like many Christians will also tell you, that contrary to Mormon proof-texts, we we are easily misled by our feelings. JWs do not believe we can be misled by the Bible, especially once the proper translation has been performed.

I've met many JWs myself also, the first time was when I was somewhere around the age of 8, it was scary, and they aren't necessarily friendly or polite.

A friend of mine who went on a mission to Germany told me that JWs did very well in the areas he served in compared to Mormons. He said a lot of German people resonated with the very serious messenger coming to the door with the Bible and talking about it logically. The happy-go-lucky ignoramus from Idaho reciting a block of text from the missionary guide isn't the measure of what it means to "testify of Christ" in the general sense.

You're in a fork. If IHAQ really meant a hypothetical where JWs bear testimony exactly like Mormons do, with a feelings and experiences dump, then you evaded the question by denying such a thing has ever been done because You've never seen it. It's possible that a JW out there somewhere has put more feeling into it than you've experienced, and despite it not being their typical way of doing things, and so if that were to happen, then what? You evaded that question.

But if IHAQ meant "testifying" in the very general sense that both are going door to door sincerely proclaiming their beliefs, then it's even worse because you have "sincerity" in "testifying" wrapped up with Mormon culture, where people bear their souls with their deepest feelings and intuition with strangers. Even that is a stereotype, because not all missionaries follow the script as well as others, and those that go above and beyond in tears aren't necessarily the best examples of doing missionary work as a Mormon.

Either way, you have once again shown how your Mormon upbringing leaves you with a serious inability to empathize with people, and that is core to what people find offensive in your personality on message boards.

[I Have Questions]

Gadianton, I have a working hypothesis that no matter the level of sincerity, MG 2.0 will not accept as legitimately equivalent any statement of belief from anyone, anywhere, ever, unless it’s a Mormon bearing the same set of beliefs that he chooses to believe.

I think he’s incapable of being even-handed when weighing up a persons beliefs. What counts as evidence for Mormonism, will not count as evidence for <something else>.

[Physics Guy]

People in other religions or denominations may well do less emphatic declaring that their Scriptures or their communities are true. I think this is mainly because other groups have less reason to make such declarations, though.

For example, a lot of people still haven't even heard of the Book of Mormon. Many people have little idea what it is. So letting them know that you think the Book of Mormon is inspired modern Scripture is telling them something that they wouldn't otherwise guess: that there are actual people who really believe it.

But who's going to go around telling people that they know that the Bible or the Quran is true? There's no need and no point. Everybody knows that some billion people or so think that those books are true. If you tell someone that you happen to be one of those billion, okay, you've told them something about you. Unless they already know and respect you so much that they're prepared to reconsider a well-known putative Scripture just on your say-so, though, you haven't told them anything important about the Quran or the Bible that they didn't already know. Somebody thinks that the world-famous holy book of a major religion is true? Yeah, we knew that.

Is a Roman Catholic going to make a big declaration that their church is the One True Church? Is a Muslim going to bear witness that Muhammed is the Seal of the Prophets? Again, no need for such statements. Everyone knows those are the Muslim and Catholic claims. There have been Popes there in Rome since it was the Roman Empire (apart from that one spell in Avignon, oops); everyone knows about Mecca. If you want to say that this upstart American outfit from the 19th century is the real One True Church, not the Catholics, or that their Prophet is the real Prophet of the Last Dispensation instead of Muhammed, then that's news that needs saying.

Billions of religious people of other persuasions than Mormonism are every bit as sure of their beliefs as any Mormons are. Most of them just don't need to say that. They have brand recognition.

[huckelberry]

Digging back in my memory I find a time I felt a strong testimony that he LDS church was true. I was a youth and still had some naïvété so thought the Mormon testimony was stronger and more reliable than the statement of belief of other faiths. One might hear that Mormons know while others believe. I did come to realize that when Mormons say they know they are expressing their belief in strong terms.

Different groups and different times have had rituals of belief sharing. There have been a variety of pilgrimages anxious seats, alter calls. Billy Graham made a particular faith ritual well known. In some places people walk to the front of the church and perhaps kneel to receive sacrament.LDS testimonies are faith rituals of course. It is done monthly in special meetings wherein Mormons express and share their faith with each other.

I think LDS testimonies help people express a commitment to their faith. As evidence it would remain like the various expressions of belief by other people.

[MG 2.0]

People in other religions or denominations may well do less emphatic declaring that their Scriptures or their communities are true. I think this is mainly because other groups have less reason to make such declarations, though.

For example, a lot of people still haven't even heard of the Book of Mormon. Many people have little idea what it is. So letting them know that you think the Book of Mormon is inspired modern Scripture is telling them something that they wouldn't otherwise guess: that there are actual people who really believe it.

But who's going to go around telling people that they know that the Bible or the Quran is true? There's no need and no point. Everybody knows that some billion people or so think that those books are true. If you tell someone that you happen to be one of those billion, okay, you've told them something about you. Unless they already know and respect you so much that they're prepared to reconsider a well-known putative Scripture just on your say-so, though, you haven't told them anything important about the Quran or the Bible that they didn't already know. Somebody thinks that the world-famous holy book of a major religion is true? Yeah, we knew that.

Is a Roman Catholic going to make a big declaration that their church is the One True Church? Is a Muslim going to bear witness that Muhammed is the Seal of the Prophets? Again, no need for such statements. Everyone knows those are the Muslim and Catholic claims. There have been Popes there in Rome since it was the Roman Empire (apart from that one spell in Avignon, oops); everyone knows about Mecca. If you want to say that this upstart American outfit from the 19th century is the real One True Church, not the Catholics, or that their Prophet is the real Prophet of the Last Dispensation instead of Muhammed, then that's news that needs saying.

Billions of religious people of other persuasions than Mormonism are every bit as sure of their beliefs as any Mormons are. Most of them just don't need to say that. They have brand recognition.

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Home run.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Not so. I think that was a beautiful gesture on his part.

Regards,
MG

The point was that you wouldn't have considered the young man's actions to be a type of testimony, the same way you just minimized the Jehovah's Witnesses witnessing.

Not true. And I’m not minimizing Jehovah’s Witnesses witnessing. The point is that their witnessing, as others have said, is based upon study of the Bible and what they see as logic to prove that their beliefs are true. I do value that.

But it’s a different species of witnessing than LDS missionaries who make the claim of bearing testimony through the Spirit of God.

Can you see the difference?

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.

--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.

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.

…and every other faith is somehow trying to imitate LDS Church…

Not sure why or where you’re going with this.

…as it has evolved through the ages.

?

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

Au contraire.

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?

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

Nice job at setting up a strawman.

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

Regards,
MG