Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

Once we’ve established that the Book of Mormon isn’t a translation of ancient gold plates - which we’ve done by acknowledging that errors made in the 17th Century when publishing the KJV Bible appear in a record claimed to have been written 1,348 years earlier on gold plates. It becomes irrelevant as to how, why and who dunnit. The book is a fraud. You’ve agreed that when you agreed that there is content in the current Book of Mormon that wasn’t on the gold plates. Whatever else it may or may not be, whoever did or did not write it, is irrelevant.

It isn’t what it claims to be. Joseph Smith lied about it, the Church is still lying about it. Bernie Madoff lied about producing stellar performing investment schemes, do you really need to know who built the spreadsheets?

And now the plagiarism is being described as "a collaborative effort", as though you can justify dishonesty by rearranging vocabulary. When you're in a hole, just stop digging.

[MG 2.0]

Once we’ve established that the Book of Mormon isn’t a translation of ancient gold plates - which we’ve done by acknowledging that errors made in the 17th Century when publishing the KJV Bible appear in a record claimed to have been written 1,348 years earlier on gold plates. It becomes irrelevant as to how, why and who dunnit. The book is a fraud. You’ve agreed that when you agreed that there is content in the current Book of Mormon that wasn’t on the gold plates. Whatever else it may or may not be, whoever did or did not write it, is irrelevant.

It isn’t what it claims to be. Joseph Smith lied about it, the Church is still lying about it. Bernie Madoff lied about producing stellar performing investment schemes, do you really need to know who built the spreadsheets?

And now the plagiarism is being described as "a collaborative effort", as though you can justify dishonesty by rearranging vocabulary. When you're in a hole, just stop digging.

I find it interesting in these conversations when folks start putting their fingers in their ears and repeating, “Na na na na na na”.

Ignorance is bliss.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Ignorance is bliss...

[I Have Questions]

A broken clock is right twice a day. Why don’t you add the other side of the ledger where Joe was clearly wrong?

IHQ is using Bible corrections/errors found in the Book of Mormon as the ‘smoking gun’ while ignoring the other evidences which lean towards Book of Mormon authenticity.

Simply ignoring them.

I consider that to be unwise.

But those errors that were made in the 17th Century are the smoking gun. Because they cannot be classed as written by ancient prophets 1,348 years earlier. The Church, and Joseph Smith assert that The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets culminating in an abridgement written in the 1st Century. But those errors categorically disprove that assertion.

If you want to cite where Joseph Smith and/or the Church states that The Book of Mormon is not 100% written by ancient Prophets, feel free. But you won’t. Because you can’t. Because they have never asserted anything other than that The Book of Mormon was 100% ancient content.

The Church today knows about those errors and how damning they are to the claim of ancient origins. And they’ve kept their institutional mouth shut. By the Church’s own definition of Honesty, that’s lying.

[MG 2.0]

...Ignorance is bliss...

Nice use of ellipses.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

IHQ is using Bible corrections/errors found in the Book of Mormon as the ‘smoking gun’ while ignoring the other evidences which lean towards Book of Mormon authenticity.

Simply ignoring them.

I consider that to be unwise.

But those errors that were made in the 17th Century are the smoking gun. Because they cannot be classed as written by ancient prophets 1,348 years earlier. The Church, and Joseph Smith assert that The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets culminating in an abridgement written in the 1st Century. But those errors categorically disprove that assertion.

If you want to cite where Joseph Smith and/or the Church states that The Book of Mormon is not 100% written by ancient Prophets, feel free. But you won’t. Because you can’t. Because they have never asserted anything other than that The Book of Mormon was 100% ancient content.

The Church today knows about those errors and how damning they are to the claim of ancient origins. And they’ve kept their institutional mouth shut. By the Church’s own definition of Honesty, that’s lying.

We’re talking past each other. Although, truth be told, I hear what you’re saying. I simply don’t agree with your conclusions and I think I’ve given good reason why.

As at other times and on other conversations I am happy to let others come to their own determinations. I am comfortable and believe that I am coming from a place of thoughtfulness and integrity.

I’m sure that you believe the same.

One more thing. I’ve harped on black and white thinking for a long time now. I’m seeing that again, in my opinion, as I read your remarks.

You are intentionally disregarding evidence that cannot be ignored. I have NOT ignored what you have said. I have responded reasonably. Is it too much to ask that you would do the same?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

But those errors that were made in the 17th Century are the smoking gun. Because they cannot be classed as written by ancient prophets 1,348 years earlier. The Church, and Joseph Smith assert that The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets culminating in an abridgement written in the 1st Century. But those errors categorically disprove that assertion.

If you want to cite where Joseph Smith and/or the Church states that The Book of Mormon is not 100% written by ancient Prophets, feel free. But you won’t. Because you can’t. Because they have never asserted anything other than that The Book of Mormon was 100% ancient content.

The Church today knows about those errors and how damning they are to the claim of ancient origins. And they’ve kept their institutional mouth shut. By the Church’s own definition of Honesty, that’s lying.

We’re talking past each other. Although, truth be told, I hear what you’re saying. I simply don’t agree with your conclusions and I think I’ve given good reason why.

As at other times and on other conversations I am happy to let others come to their own determinations. I am comfortable and believe that I am coming from a place of thoughtfulness and integrity.

I’m sure that you believe the same.

One more thing. I’ve harped on black and white thinking for a long time now. I’m seeing that again, in my opinion, as I read your remarks.

You are intentionally disregarding evidence that cannot be ignored. I have NOT ignored what you have said. I have responded reasonably. Is it too much to ask that you would do the same?

Regards,
MG

How can errors that were made in the 17th century be classed as “written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century”? Keep in mind that Smith and the Church assert that 100% of the Book of Mormon was written in the 1st Century or earlier.

Let me simplify it:
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Which one isn’t true?

[MG 2.0]

We’re talking past each other. Although, truth be told, I hear what you’re saying. I simply don’t agree with your conclusions and I think I’ve given good reason why.

As at other times and on other conversations I am happy to let others come to their own determinations. I am comfortable and believe that I am coming from a place of thoughtfulness and integrity.

I’m sure that you believe the same.

One more thing. I’ve harped on black and white thinking for a long time now. I’m seeing that again, in my opinion, as I read your remarks.

You are intentionally disregarding evidence that cannot be ignored. I have NOT ignored what you have said. I have responded reasonably. Is it too much to ask that you would do the same?

Regards,
MG

How can errors that were made in the 17th century be classed as “written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century”? Keep in mind that Smith and the Church assert that 100% of the Book of Mormon was written in the 1st Century or earlier.

Let me simplify it:
1. The Church asserts that the Book of Mormon was 100% written in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

Wow. On another thread I compared you to a horse wearing blinders. Just wow.

I’ve commented on your questions. Would you care to answer mine? You ignore them as though you can’t even see them.

And you also ignore my responses.

Thus the horse analogy.

I think I’m just about done going in circles with you, IHQ.

Answer my questions!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

We’re talking past each other. Although, truth be told, I hear what you’re saying. I simply don’t agree with your conclusions and I think I’ve given good reason why.

As at other times and on other conversations I am happy to let others come to their own determinations. I am comfortable and believe that I am coming from a place of thoughtfulness and integrity.

I’m sure that you believe the same.

One more thing. I’ve harped on black and white thinking for a long time now. I’m seeing that again, in my opinion, as I read your remarks.

You are intentionally disregarding evidence that cannot be ignored. I have NOT ignored what you have said. I have responded reasonably. Is it too much to ask that you would do the same?

Regards,
MG

How can errors that were made in the 17th century be classed as “written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century”? Keep in mind that Smith and the Church assert that 100% of the Book of Mormon was written in the 1st Century or earlier.

Let me simplify it:
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Which one isn’t true?

Which statement isn’t true?

We can’t move on until we’ve dealt with this.

[MG 2.0]

How can errors that were made in the 17th century be classed as “written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century”? Keep in mind that Smith and the Church assert that 100% of the Book of Mormon was written in the 1st Century or earlier.

Let me simplify it:
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Which one isn’t true?

Which statement isn’t true?

We can’t move on until we’ve dealt with this.

Says who? I do not believe that you have been chosen to decide what questions are to be tackled in any certain order. As it is, it is readily apparent you have been avoiding mine. Doing so would potentially blow your concerns out of the water.

I have already commented on and answered your inquiries as to how we have Bible in the Book of Mormon. You have failed to answer my questions dealing with stylometry, Chiasmus, complexity, etc.

We can’t move on until you are willing to have a two way conversation rather than controlling the narrative by being intentionally obtuse.

Regards,
MG