Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

You don’t have to read far into the comments until you come across this:

…this wouldn't count as a primary source, and it makes zero citations or presents zero primary sources.

The Smiths lived in Wayne County for 15 years.
This was written 46 years after they left. Any person who personally knew the Smiths as an adult was at least 64 years old and hadn't seen them in over 46 years.
To me this sounds like a bunch of tall tales that were told from neighbor to neighbor about the strange family that started a religion and then left. Furthermore, it appears that the original account of Hussey and Vanduzer was part of Pomeroy Tucker's Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism. Tucker was an avowed anti-Mormon and critic of Smith. Yet even in that book it doesn't cite where the story of Hussey and Vanduzer came from. He doesn't claim it was told to him firsthand by Hussey or Vanduzer, and no other source is provided.

It goes on from there. Steuss gave a less than trustworthy source for his ‘brick story’. As I said, if you want to believe this ‘source’ then I suppose that’s up to you. I’m not going to go with the ‘no plates theory’ based on this.

Pretty shaky.

Regards,
MG

So you are rejecting it on the basis of what an anonymous person on Reddit said about it? Really?

[MG 2.0]

You don’t have to read far into the comments until you come across this:



It goes on from there. Steuss gave a less than trustworthy source for his ‘brick story’. As I said, if you want to believe this ‘source’ then I suppose that’s up to you. I’m not going to go with the ‘no plates theory’ based on this.

Pretty shaky.

Regards,
MG

So you are rejecting it on the basis of what an anonymous person on Reddit said about it? Really?

If you can show that what this person said is not true then I might take you seriously. As it is, I have no reason to do so.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

So you are rejecting it on the basis of what an anonymous person on Reddit said about it? Really?

If you can show that what this person said is not true then I might take you seriously. As it is, I have no reason to do so.

Regards,
MG

So, the word of an anonymous Reddit commenter is information enough for you to make a decision on something’s validity. If it agrees with what you want to believe. Now that’s either intellectual dishonesty of the highest order, or a severe case of willful confirmation bias. Take your pick. You’re certainly not open minded to the possibility that Joseph had a tile brick. Despite Kripal.

[Doctor Steuss]

It goes on from there. Steuss gave a less than trustworthy source for his ‘brick story’. As I said, if you want to believe this ‘source’ then I suppose that’s up to you. I’m not going to go with the ‘no plates theory’ based on this.

Pretty shaky.

Regards,
MG

I'm going to go out on a limb, given that you belong to a Brighamite sect, that you are highly selective and incredibly inconsistent in how you apply this standard to sources.

Perhaps if you prayed about the Brick of Mormon?

[MG 2.0]

If you can show that what this person said is not true then I might take you seriously. As it is, I have no reason to do so.

Regards,
MG

So, the word of an anonymous Reddit commenter is information enough for you to make a decision on something’s validity. If it agrees with what you want to believe. Now that’s either intellectual dishonesty of the highest order, or a severe case of willful confirmation bias. Take your pick. You’re certainly not open minded to the possibility that Joseph had a tile brick. Despite Kripal.

If you can show me evidence, I’m open to it. I haven’t seen it.

Care to provide it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It goes on from there. Steuss gave a less than trustworthy source for his ‘brick story’. As I said, if you want to believe this ‘source’ then I suppose that’s up to you. I’m not going to go with the ‘no plates theory’ based on this.

Pretty shaky.

Regards,
MG

I'm going to go out on a limb, given that you belong to a Brighamite sect, that you are highly selective and incredibly inconsistent in how you apply this standard to sources.

Perhaps if you prayed about the Brick of Mormon?

Thanks for your response. Doesn’t really go anywhere. I think you gave a bad source for your pet theory.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

So, the word of an anonymous Reddit commenter is information enough for you to make a decision on something’s validity. If it agrees with what you want to believe. Now that’s either intellectual dishonesty of the highest order, or a severe case of willful confirmation bias. Take your pick. You’re certainly not open minded to the possibility that Joseph had a tile brick. Despite Kripal.

If you can show me evidence, I’m open to it. I haven’t seen it.

Care to provide it?

Regards,
MG

What evidence has the anonymous Reddit commenter shown you? What evidence have you seen that gold plates existed (other than hearsay)? You’ve been shown evidence that The Book of Mormon contains content that dates to 1,348 years later than when it was supposedly written and sealed up - which means it isn’t what it claims to be. But I’m willing to wager that you still believe The Book of Mormon is exactly what Joseph and the Church today claims it is, despite that cast iron evidence.

So evidence isn’t your determining factor. Wether evidence supports what you want to believe, is the only type of evidence you’re interested in, and that makes you intellectually dishonest.

[Doctor Steuss]

Thanks for your response. Doesn’t really go anywhere. I think you gave a bad source for your pet theory.

Regards,
MG

If you want to similarly label Brigham Young's transfiguration a pet theory based on bad sources, that's certainly your prerogative.

Incidentally, would you say there's more evidence for the existence of tiles, or more evidence for the existence of a resurrected pre-Colombian American Israelite who created a new written language to compile a record on golden plates to later give to a farmer with a documented history of capitalizing on the superstitious beliefs of others, and then take those same plates away because [insert reason]? Y'know, while we're analyzing evidentiary standards.

Personally, I've seen more tiles in my life. Your mileage may vary.

[I Have Questions]

Thanks for your response. Doesn’t really go anywhere. I think you gave a bad source for your pet theory.

Regards,
MG

If you want to similarly label Brigham Young's transfiguration a pet theory based on bad sources, that's certainly your prerogative.

Incidentally, would you say there's more evidence for the existence of tiles, or more evidence for the existence of a resurrected pre-Colombian American Israelite who created a new written language to compile a record on golden plates to later give to a farmer with a documented history of capitalizing on the superstitious beliefs of others, and then take those same plates away because [insert reason]? Y'know, while we're analyzing evidentiary standards.

Personally, I've seen more tiles in my life. Your mileage may vary.

Who was the guy who worked for the printer that printed The Book of Mormon and who reported on the brick tile tale?

[MG 2.0]

If you can show me evidence, I’m open to it. I haven’t seen it.

Care to provide it?

Regards,
MG

What evidence has the anonymous Reddit commenter shown you? What evidence have you seen that gold plates existed (other than hearsay)? You’ve been shown evidence that The Book of Mormon contains content that dates to 1,348 years later than when it was supposedly written and sealed up - which means it isn’t what it claims to be. But I’m willing to wager that you still believe The Book of Mormon is exactly what Joseph and the Church today claims it is, despite that cast iron evidence.

So evidence isn’t your determining factor. Wether evidence supports what you want to believe, is the only type of evidence you’re interested in, and that makes you intellectually dishonest.

I could say the same thing about you. Would it be true? Accepting bad evidence?

Yeah…let’s go with the brick…

My studies have led me to a place where I believe there were plates. You don’t want to go there.

So it’s a brick.

Even if the evidence is terribly bad and/or almost nonexistent.

It’s reverse engineering on your part. Since you aren’t able to accept what is IN the Book of Mormon you apparently, by default, are unable to even entertain anything other than a brick instead of plates

Plates open up possibilities that a brick doesn’t.

Regards,
MG