Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[MG 2.0]

The Book of Mormon wasn’t solely written by ancient Prophets prior to the end of the first century and contains some things written much later. Is that what you’re saying?

Plates=Book of Mormon?

Verbatim?

Sounds actually implausible.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

That’s a fairly ambiguous thing to say. It’s like you’re trying to say that The Book of Mormon wasn’t solely written by ancient Prophets prior to the end of the first century and contains some things written much later. Is that what you’re saying?

Not quite.The plates contained the writings of prophets on plates. Then compiled by Mormon. In Reformed Egyptian. There would already be a lot of ‘transference’ going on in that process. We then have plates delivered to Joseph. After a bit of hit and miss trying to figure things out he comes ‘online’... figuratively/literally…and begins the actual translation process.

What does translation mean in this instance?

That, dear Watson, is the million dollar question. The other day I supplanted/added another word along side of the word translation.

Remember what that word was? It wasn’t an accident.

Regards,
MG

If you can cut out the childish patronising that would help.

So I’m still unsure what you’re talking about when you say “not quite”. It’s a non answer. Your claim that it wasn’t a one for one translation sounds a lot like you’re in the “loose translation” camp. Do I have that right?

[I Have Questions]

The Book of Mormon wasn’t solely written by ancient Prophets prior to the end of the first century and contains some things written much later. Is that what you’re saying?

Plates=Book of Mormon?

Verbatim?

Sounds actually implausible.

Regards,
MG

Well you might want to take that up with The First Presidency…

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God.

We are (now) told that translation is purported as being one word at a time via a magic rock.

[MG 2.0]

If you can cut out the childish patronising that would help.

You’ve got to be kidding.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Plates=Book of Mormon?

Verbatim?

Sounds actually implausible.

Regards,
MG

Well you might want to take that up with The First Presidency…

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... tures/Book of Mormon/introduction?lang=eng

In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God.

We are (now) told that translation is purported as being one word at a time via a magic rock.

I don’t have any problem with what the First Presidency has said in the quotes you posted.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Not quite.The plates contained the writings of prophets on plates. Then compiled by Mormon. In Reformed Egyptian. There would already be a lot of ‘transference’ going on in that process. We then have plates delivered to Joseph. After a bit of hit and miss trying to figure things out he comes ‘online’... figuratively/literally…and begins the actual translation process.

What does translation mean in this instance?

That, dear Watson, is the million dollar question. The other day I supplanted/added another word along side of the word translation.

Remember what that word was? It wasn’t an accident.

Regards,
MG

If you can cut out the childish patronising that would help.

So I’m still unsure what you’re talking about when you say “not quite”. It’s a non answer. Your claim that it wasn’t a one for one translation sounds a lot like you’re in the “loose translation” camp. Do I have that right?

I’m not sure you can put a name to it. For your benefit let’s say somewhere between tight and loose.

But at the end of the day, by the gift and power of God.

Thing is, IHQ, when you take God out of the picture your options are rather limited. But at the same time we can’t just go all ‘willy nilly’ either. It’s a balance. Even a fine balance.

That’s what my experience has told me over the years. Yin and Yang. Balance. Try and find the harmony.

It’s almost always there.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive…[snip]

At times, I do call it as I see it. Passive aggressive? I don’t think so.

Interestingly, I don’t find myself trying to label others with psychobabble stuff. I’m more interested in the arguments and opinions.

And as I’ve said, I will discontinue using the word apostate if that seems to be offensive to some.

No, psychobabble would be if I tried to put you into a diagnostic category, like calling you bipolar or narcissistic. Passive aggressive personality disorder, as a category, was dropped from the DSM IV about twenty years ago. As a term, 'passive aggressive' has now entered the popular lexicon. Anyway, I didn't call you passive aggressive. I wrote that your statement was.


By the way, for future reference, here's your post that Drumdude and I were responding to:

IHQ is a confirmed nonbeliever. It is incumbent on each individual to do their OWN research and investigation. Do not rely on the words of an apostate.

Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)

The nature of online communication. We don’t know ‘the other’. What I do know is that IHQ is an apostate for whatever that might be worth in the equation of things.

And here's the whole post of mine that you extracted those six words from:

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." He doubles down by implying that not being a nice guy could be linked to what he calls IHQ's apostasy.

In MG's mind, the insertion of a smiley face gives him deniability. I'm sure my comment will also bring charges that I'm canceling him. But I'm not. I don't really care what insults he suggests. I doubt if IHQ does, either. That said, I do find it interesting when the mask slips.

Must be great times at Thanksgiving Dinner. "Dear, aren't you dressing a little slutty? LOL. You know I'm just kidding. Who even knows what slutty looks like with your generation."

You disingenuously cut off the end of what I wrote. The whole sentence was: "My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." This is where you suggest that, because IHQ is an apostate, he might not be a good guy.

If IHQ had said, about you or anyone else, "Do not rely on the words of a Mormon [or Christian or Mexican]. Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)" it would have also been out of line. Don't you agree?


The problem isn't your use of the word 'apostate,' but your implication that apostates (and IHQ) might only seem to nice 'guys--but may very well not be--all by virtue of what they argue and believe.

Just leave my mother out of it…please.(not you personally, just as a general statement brought about by what another poster crudely did). I may come down hard on that.

Yes, do please leave your mother out of this. This conversation you're having with me has nothing to do with your mother. I'm not sure why you're dragging the poor woman into this.

Or are you saying that, because someone sometime said something bad about your mother, that you're entitled to engage in bad behavior, too?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

That’s a fairly ambiguous thing to say. It’s like you’re trying to say that The Book of Mormon wasn’t solely written by ancient Prophets prior to the end of the first century and contains some things written much later. Is that what you’re saying?

Not quite.The plates contained the writings of prophets on plates. Then compiled by Mormon. In Reformed Egyptian. There would already be a lot of ‘transference’ going on in that process. We then have plates delivered to Joseph. After a bit of hit and miss trying to figure things out he comes ‘online’... figuratively/literally…and begins the actual translation process.

What does translation mean in this instance?

That, dear Watson, is the million dollar question. The other day I supplanted/added another word along side of the word translation.

Remember what that word was? It wasn’t an accident.

It's a strange Mormon phenomenon known as Occam's Inverse Razor. Basically, Occam's Inverse Razor says that the more convoluted and unbelievable the explanation for something is, the more miraculously true that thing must be. It's literally magical.

[MG 2.0]

If IHQ had said, about you or anyone else, "Do not rely on the words of a Mormon…even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)" it would have also been out of line. Don't you agree?

No.

The problem isn't your use of the word 'apostate,' but your implication that apostates (and IHQ) might only seem to nice 'guys--but may very well not be--all by virtue of what they argue and believe.

Not even. Simply put, I don’t know. I’m strictly neutral. I’d have to meet you in person. I’ve met malkie. He’s a nice guy. He said the same of me. Years ago I had lucnh with Runtu. Remember him? I’ve had lunch with Shades. Good guys!

When I used to visit the old FAIR Board (I don’t go there anymore), I found myself wondering, “What are these guys really like Mano to Mano in real life? For all I know they were numbskulls.

I don’t hold any difference/deference for those here. I’ve mentioned a number of times that you or another person may very well be a nice guy in real life. But the fact is, I don’t know. I really don’t

There are a lot of crazies running around in this world. If you live in Utah, let’s meet up! I’ll treat you to lunch.

Just leave my mother out of it…please.(not you personally, just as a general statement brought about by what another poster crudely did). I may come down hard on that.

Yes, do please leave your mother out of this. This conversation you're having with me has nothing to do with your mother. I'm not sure why you're dragging the poor woman into this.

The reason is obvious. It is inappropriate. I specifically said I was not referring to you. I was addressing a number of posts that came from others.

Get off your high horse. Okey dokey?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Not quite.The plates contained the writings of prophets on plates. Then compiled by Mormon. In Reformed Egyptian. There would already be a lot of ‘transference’ going on in that process. We then have plates delivered to Joseph. After a bit of hit and miss trying to figure things out he comes ‘online’... figuratively/literally…and begins the actual translation process.

What does translation mean in this instance?

That, dear Watson, is the million dollar question. The other day I supplanted/added another word along side of the word translation.

Remember what that word was? It wasn’t an accident.

It's a strange Mormon phenomenon known as Occam's Inverse Razor. Basically, Occam's Inverse Razor says that the more convoluted and unbelievable the explanation for something is, the more miraculously true that thing must be. It's literally magical.

You are actually making a point. Ill founded, but a point nonetheless.

See? That wasn’t so hard was it?

You don’t have to be disgusting. Keep at it.

Regards,
MG