Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Morley]

It's because you approach it like this, right?

https://youtu.be/myW2egBg0NY

What reason would she have to lie to her son?

Regards,
MG

Dunno. You tell me.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that Emma lied to her sons.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... marriage.6


She did this until the day she died. You know, kind of like the three witnesses and the plates.

[MG 2.0]

Now it’s that he read words off a magic rock, one at a time, whilst the rock was in a hat. Both of those processes look to be untruths because both processes would avoid KJV Bible content and KJV Bible mistakes and KJV Bible content repurposed as if someone else said it in the Book of Mormon. This kinds of errors wouldn’t be produced by a literal translation of ancient gold plates, nor would they be produced by a literal dictation of a supernatural projection of a literal translation of ancient gold plates.

The bolded/blue words are where I have disagreement with you. What you’re doing is projecting.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

https://youtu.be/myW2egBg0NY

What reason would she have to lie to her son?

Regards,
MG

Dunno. You tell me.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that Emma lied to her sons.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... marriage.6


She did this until the day she died. You know, kind of like the three witnesses and the plates.

This link is not taking us to a source that says Emma lied to her sons.

Also, making a connection between Emma and the three witnesses may not be applicable. You would have to show that both parties were unreliable witnesses.

Using IHQ’s tagline isn’t sufficient evidence.

I’m going to go with Richard Lloyd Anderson on this.

It seems to me that, as mentioned in the YouTube video I just linked to, that Emma would be less than likely to purposefully lie to her son in this situation. If you can provide a direct link to show that she did, that would help.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Now it’s that he read words off a magic rock, one at a time, whilst the rock was in a hat. Both of those processes look to be untruths because both processes would avoid KJV Bible content and KJV Bible mistakes and KJV Bible content repurposed as if someone else said it in the Book of Mormon. This kinds of errors wouldn’t be produced by a literal translation of ancient gold plates, nor would they be produced by a literal dictation of a supernatural projection of a literal translation of ancient gold plates.

The bolded/blue words are where I have disagreement with you. What you’re doing is projecting.

Regards,
MG

I’m not projecting. You’re not understanding that term.

What I’m doing is making a reasoned assumption based on the facts at our disposal. You can explain how and why you think KJV Bible content would get into the Book of Mormon and into the mouths of Book of Mormon characters via a process where Smith is using magic spectacles to complete a literal translation of ancient gold plates, and you can explain how and why you think KJV Bible would get into the Book of Mormon and into the mouths of Book of Mormon characters via a process where Smith is literally dictating the supernatural translation of ancient gold plates.

[MG 2.0]

The bolded/blue words are where I have disagreement with you. What you’re doing is projecting.

Regards,
MG

I’m not projecting. You’re not understanding that term.

What I’m doing is making a reasoned assumption based on the facts at our disposal. You can explain how and why you think KJV Bible content would get into the Book of Mormon and into the mouths of Book of Mormon characters via a process where Smith is using magic spectacles to complete a literal translation of ancient gold plates, and you can explain how and why you think KJV Bible would get into the Book of Mormon and into the mouths of Book of Mormon characters via a process where Smith is literally dictating the supernatural translation of ancient gold plates.

You’re right, and I have. Although, again, I would dispute that it is a literal translation. I’ve already commented on this.

You’re going in circles. And yes, you are projecting.

We seem to be in disagreement on this whole ‘literal’ thing and what it means. Looks like we’re coming back to a definition issue that has a habit of cropping up now and again.

I do think we’ve reached a point where you are circling back and circling back after I’ve already given answers/thoughts that run counter to your original overture/proposition. I give counter proposals and you simply ignore and circle back.

I’m not sure I want to keep doing that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Taking a break for now.

Later.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

The fact is, is that there has been no reason to have concerns about the narrative of the Book of Mormon translation process.

Of course there are reasons to be concerned. Content copied verbatim from the KJV Bible, content copied verbatim from the KJV Bible and reused as if it was content from some of the Book of Mormon characters, are good, solid, objective reasons to be concerned about the claim that the Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient plates. If the claim about the process is that Smith translated ancient plates (which is the claim) then people should rightly question the validity of how Smith said he produced that translation.

Another concern with the process is that the story of what process was used has changed. At first it was produced by using magic spectacles and reading from the plates. Now it’s that he read words off a magic rock, one at a time, whilst the rock was in a hat. Both of those processes look to be untruths because both processes would avoid KJV Bible content and KJV Bible mistakes and KJV Bible content repurposed as if someone else said it in the Book of Mormon. This kinds of errors wouldn’t be produced by a literal translation of ancient gold plates, nor would they be produced by a literal dictation of a supernatural projection of a literal translation of ancient gold plates.

Now if you want to speculate beyond those two processes, well, you’re not in a position of doctrinal strength. You’re just making stuff up to avoid grasping the nettle that the Church also wants to avoid grasping. KJV Bible content in the Book of Mormon.

But feel free to go down the ghost committee route, it sounds like you want to…

Concerning the witness statements about the process:

• Was Joseph under constant surveillance during the "translation"?
  If not, almost anything could have happened at other times.

• Did any of the witnesses to the process see the input (on the stone) and compare input to output (what Joseph wrote)?
  If so, did they later verify that the output they saw corresponded with the printed Book of Mormon?

• Even then, if they could not place the input/output within the context of the printed material, there's still many ways in which an observed output snippet (if recorded by the witness) could be incorporated in the printed material.

in my opinion, there are just too many possible ways that manuscript content could have been created or inserted for anyone to say anything definitive about where the text of the Book of Mormon came from.

Also worth noting that simply that no witness reports seeing something does not prove that that something didn't happen.

[I Have Questions]

You’re right, and I have. Although, again, I would dispute that it is a literal translation. I’ve already commented on this.

What’s the alternative to a literal translation of the gold plates (which is what the Church and the book itself claims the Book of Mormon is)?

You’re going in circles. And yes, you are projecting.

Projecting is an entirely different thing. It’s been suggested that you check what you’re saying before you say it. This is a good example of why you should do that.

Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection
Doubling down on your mistake by still not checking what you’re saying when it’s been pointed out that you are mistaken, is just a bit daft. I’m trying to help you here but you need to help yourself too.

We seem to be in disagreement on this whole ‘literal’ thing and what it means.

You've yet to explain what it is if not a literal translation of ancient gold plates (which is what the Church and the book itself says it is).

I do think we’ve reached a point where you are circling back and circling back after I’ve already given answers/thoughts that run counter to your original overture/proposition. I give counter proposals and you simply ignore and circle back.

But you don’t give counter proposals. That’s the problem. You dispute other people’s proposals, but don’t give any of your own.

I’m not sure I want to keep doing that.

And yet that’s what you keep doing.

[I Have Questions]

Of course there are reasons to be concerned. Content copied verbatim from the KJV Bible, content copied verbatim from the KJV Bible and reused as if it was content from some of the Book of Mormon characters, are good, solid, objective reasons to be concerned about the claim that the Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient plates. If the claim about the process is that Smith translated ancient plates (which is the claim) then people should rightly question the validity of how Smith said he produced that translation.

Another concern with the process is that the story of what process was used has changed. At first it was produced by using magic spectacles and reading from the plates. Now it’s that he read words off a magic rock, one at a time, whilst the rock was in a hat. Both of those processes look to be untruths because both processes would avoid KJV Bible content and KJV Bible mistakes and KJV Bible content repurposed as if someone else said it in the Book of Mormon. This kinds of errors wouldn’t be produced by a literal translation of ancient gold plates, nor would they be produced by a literal dictation of a supernatural projection of a literal translation of ancient gold plates.

Now if you want to speculate beyond those two processes, well, you’re not in a position of doctrinal strength. You’re just making stuff up to avoid grasping the nettle that the Church also wants to avoid grasping. KJV Bible content in the Book of Mormon.

But feel free to go down the ghost committee route, it sounds like you want to…

Concerning the witness statements about the process:

• Was Joseph under constant surveillance during the "translation"?
  If not, almost anything could have happened at other times.

Smith had several years to concoct his story. He was a skilled and imaginative story teller. The only thing we can trust for sure is that he plagiarised the KJV Bible. We have hard evidence of that.

• Did any of the witnesses to the process see the input (on the stone) and compare input to output (what Joseph wrote)?
  If so, did they later verify that the output they saw corresponded with the printed Book of Mormon?

No. they had no way of verifying anything Smith said or did.

• Even then, if they could not place the input/output within the context of the printed material, there's still many ways in which an observed output snippet (if recorded by the witness) could be incorporated in the printed material.

There is plenty of reason to suspect Smith borrowed from other material available to him. View Of The Hebrews and The Pilgrims Progress are two compelling potential sources.

in my opinion, there are just too many possible ways that manuscript content could have been created or inserted for anyone to say anything definitive about where the text of the Book of Mormon came from.

I agree for the most part with that. But we can say definitively that portions of it came from the KJV Bible. We have solid evidence for that.

Also worth noting that simply that no witness reports seeing something does not prove that that something didn't happen.

And 11 witnesses saying they did see something does not prove it did happen.

[Morley]

Dunno. You tell me.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that Emma lied to her sons.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... marriage.6


She did this until the day she died. You know, kind of like the three witnesses and the plates.

This link is not taking us to a source that says Emma lied to her sons.

Of course it does. What do you think it's saying? Here it is again:

"After her death in 1879, her sons published a transcript of an interview in which she purportedly denied Joseph had ever sanctioned plural marriage."


This also speaks to her lying to her sons and everyone else:

"Despite her knowledge of polygamy, Emma publicly denied that her husband had ever taken additional wives.[51] While Smith was still alive, Emma spoke against polygamy,[52] and she (along with multiple other signatories directly involved in polygamy) signed an 1842 petition denying that Smith or his church endorsed the practice.[53] After his death, she continued to deny his polygamy. When Joseph III and Alexander specifically asked about polygamy in an interview with their mother, she stated, "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of ... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have".[54][e]

"Many of the Latter Day Saints who joined the RLDS Church in the midwestern United States had broken with Brigham Young and/or James Strang because of opposition to polygamy. Emma's continuing public denial of the practice seemed to lend strength to their cause, and opposition to polygamy became a tenet of the RLDS Church. Over the years, many RLDS Church historians have continued to state that the practice had originated with Brigham Young.[55]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smit ... e,%5B55%5D

Her death sealed her lying testimony about polygamy and the man whose coffee she poisoned because of it.

Also, making a connection between Emma and the three witnesses may not be applicable. You would have to show that both parties were unreliable witnesses.

No, I wouldn't. You gave, as evidence of Emma's probable integrity regarding the Book of Mormon story, the suggestion that she would never lie to her sons. But of course she lied to her sons. And if Emma would lie her whole life about polygamy, if she was enough of a liar that Brigham Young, a prophet of God, distrusted her, I'm not sure that she's much of a witness.