Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[ceeboo]

Given that this thread is 99 pages long, I just wanted to tip my hat to MG. Talk about commitment/patience/stamina.

(Hat tip)

[Marcus]

What does "projecting" mean to you, in this context? It's not clear.

Projecting our own biases and beliefs upon God or those that lived in the past.

Regards,
MG

Anyone who says anything about a god is projecting, then, and you are a prime example.. Everything you say about your belief in your god is projection! Or, more reasonably, talking specifically about something that cannot be proved and is not considered universally factual by those in your discussion by necessity requires one to use their beliefs and/or their imagination or what others have said to fill in the story.

Back to the comment from ihq, which of course you truncated without indicating so:

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…

The ghost committee! Yes, we need to hear more about that, especially since Skousen has wrapped up his project that was so instrumental in introducing it originally.

[MG 2.0]

Given that this thread is 99 pages long, I just wanted to tip my hat to MG. Talk about commitment/patience/stamina.

(Hat tip)

Ha! Yeah, we’re rolling along at two months plus. I think things have run their course more or less.

It’s been interesting to get various points of view and see where others are coming from in regards to the Book of Mormon and what it is or is not.

The Book of Mormon has been discussed by believers and nonbelievers going on now for almost two hundred years. And been printed in over 115 languages. Many people have testified of its truthfulness and how it has brought them closer to their Savior and to their Heavenly Father. There have always been detractors and probably always will be.

The same thing seems to hold true with the Book of Mormon as with the founding prophet:

“that (Joseph’s) name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”

This thread has been a wild ride and a lot of fun. But it’s time for me to finally get off the ride.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be divinely inspired and brought to the earth in our day to testify of Jesus Christ and his divine mission. A second witness along with the Holy Bible. This second witness has brought many souls to Christ and the plan which our Father has to save His children and bring them back to His presence. I can joyfully testify of that ( now that I’m exiting this thread for the final time).

I’ll leave it others to take it over one hundred pages.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

No ghost committee??

That's been the second most fun topic of all the discussions of this imaginary history of imaginary people. The most fun, of course, are Shulem's threads.

[I Have Questions]

When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they're italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?

ISAIAH 9:1 (KJV)
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.

2 NEPHI 19:1
Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.

The above example, 2 Nephi 19:1, dated in the Book of Mormon to be around 550 BC, quotes nearly verbatim from the 1611 AD translation of Isaiah 9:1 KJV – including the translators’ italicized words.

https://read.cesletter.org/Book of Mormon/#_1769-kjv-errors

MALACHI 3:10 (KJV)
...and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

3 NEPHI 24:10
...and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

In the above example, the KJV translators added 7 italicized words to their English translation, which are not found in the source Hebrew manuscripts. Why does the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to have been completed by Moroni over 1,400 years prior, contain the exact identical seven italicized words of 17th century translators?

Smith did not understand the significance of the italicized words in the KJV Bible that he was plagiarising. He just copied them, unwittingly providing smoking gun evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.

I have a testimony based on objective, hard, clear evidence from the the contents of the Book of Mormon itself that Smith did not understand the significance of the italicized words in the KJV Bible that he was plagiarising. He just copied them, unwittingly providing smoking gun evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it and the Church claims it to be.

[ceeboo]

Given that this thread is 99 pages long, I just wanted to tip my hat to MG. Talk about commitment/patience/stamina.

(Hat tip)

This thread has been a wild ride and a lot of fun. But it’s time for me to finally get off the ride.

I’ll leave it others to take it over one hundred pages.

I really hope that my comment hasn't influenced you to post this? To be clear, I was sincerely giving you a hat-tip.

[MG 2.0]

This thread has been a wild ride and a lot of fun. But it’s time for me to finally get off the ride.

I’ll leave it others to take it over one hundred pages.

I really hope that my comment hasn't influenced you to post this? To be clear, I was sincerely giving you a hat-tip.

Not at all ceeboo! I’ve been feeling/thinking for a while that this particular thread has run its course for me. We’ve been all over the map.

I appreciate your comment and kind words.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

One might expect that in regards to having to deal with her husband taking plural wives.

Why might one expect her to lie about her husband taking plural wives?

Bump

[Morley]

Or she may have just been lying. She’s certainly not the pillar of rectitude you’re pretending she was.

When did Emma publicly applaud or even acknowledge polygamy? She was circumspect enough that her own children weren’t aware of it.

Examples are few. She did ‘sign on’ to these marriages and attended the ceremonies:

1. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner
2. Patty Bartlett (Sessions)
3. Marinda Nancy Johnson (Hyde)
4. Sarah and Maria Lawrence, and Eliza and Emily Partridge

According to testimony from Lovina Smith Walker, Emma Smith was present for and consented to these marriages, even going so far as to place Emily Partridge's hand in Joseph Smith's hand during their ceremony.*

My point is that Emma was at a ‘different place’ as time moved on from the translation period. She had other things going on in her life that may have resulted in mental/spiritual trauma and struggle that may not have been present in earlier years. I’m hesitant to call her a liar across the board and make a gross generalization as you appear to be doing.

Regards,
MG

*some referencing from Pi A.I.

None of these were public acknowledgments of polygamy.

My point was that Emma is not the credible witness to the existence of the plates that you’ve repeatedly argued.

[Morley]

The same thing seems to hold true with the Book of Mormon as with the founding prophet:

“that (Joseph’s) name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”

Ha! You have delusions of grandeur!

Most of the world has heard of neither Joseph Smith nor Mormons. Mention either term in countries like China, India, Pakistan, or Iran, and you’ll almost certainly get a blank stare. Even in the places outside of the West where the word ‘Mormon’ is known, it often comes with the misconception that we’re still a bearded, hat-wearing, polygamist sect in long, black coats.

For better or worse, few people know or care about poor, brother Joseph. And to be honest, why should they? Mormons had an enormous impact on the settlement of the American West. The tiny religion’s impact on the rest of the world? Meh.