Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Morley]

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.

You're misrepresenting me again. That was not my question, was it? Here is again:

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?

Is your answer still no?

[Morley]

Get off your high horse. Okey dokey?

Another proof that no bully wants to be called out for their behavior.

[MG 2.0]

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?

Is your answer still no?

You’re hung up on this. Give it a break.

Why would my answer change?

Need sensitivity training?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Get off your high horse. Okey dokey?

Another proof that no bully wants to be called out for their behavior.

Like I said, need sensitivity training? I’m a bully?

Sheesh.

You’re sucking up time and bandwidth (a catchy little phrase for ‘Get off it!”)

More often than not you stick to substance. What happened here?

What’s with the naked guy??

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Why does mg do this?

[The troll's] discursive practice therefore consists in measuring out the outrageousness of arguments, so that initial contradictory semantic positions do not immediately disclose the real nature of the game [but] spiral, in which progressively more and more intolerable arguments are used without giving out, for that reason, the fictitiousness of their pragmatics.

... the counterpart of choosing and endorsing opposite arguments is necessary but not sufficient.... In order to achieve its sadistic goal, trolling must be full of non sequitur, repetitions, petitions of principle, arguments ad personam, and so on, skillfully displaying an array of logical fallacies that constitute a sort of counter manual of rhetoric....

The mental gymnast's tactics, summed up.

[I Have Questions]

No. it’s an impossibility.

If I write something unique today in 2024, it cannot appear in a record that has already been written 1,348 earlier. It has to be an ‘after-the-event’ interjection.

That is true.

If somebody writes something unique and erroneous in the 17th century, it cannot appear in a record that had already been written 1,348 years earlier, it has to be an after-the-event interjection.

So the statement “The Book of Mormon was 100% written by people who lived prior to the 1st century” cannot be true. Unfortunately that’s what Smith said, it’s what he wrote in The Book of Mormon, it’s what the Church claims today. It’s simply not true (unlike the statement you just agreed was true).

[I Have Questions]

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.

You’re so vague about everything I can only assume that’s deliberate.

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

None of which is relevant to the mistakes of 17th century men appearing, verbatim, in a record that is promoted as being 100% written prior to the end of the first century. In a tight, semi-tight, semi-loose, or loose translation, those 17th century mistakes show that claim to be false. At some point, somebody copied words from the 17th century and put them in a record that was supposed to be from the 1st century.

You’re wanting to discuss the how and who. Fine, let’s do that. Given God’s involvement, how did 17th century mistakes end up in a translation of a book supposedly written 1,348 years earlier?

1. God inspired Joseph to make those same mistakes when transmuting/transmitting/translating the Book of Mormon.
2. Joseph, or someone else involved, plagiarised the KJV Bible.
3. A committee of dead people pre-translated the plates at some point after the 17th century but before transmitting it to Joseph, and they plagiarised the KJV Bible not realising they were including content that was written later than the time period of the Book of Mormon and neither God, nor Jesus, nor Moroni, nor Mormon, nor Nephi, nor Lehi, corrected them before they pressed “send”.

So what happened?

[I Have Questions]

Putting to one side the how and the who, and also ignoring the things like Elephants, Horses, Steel, Barley etc. there’s another question.

Now that it is known that there is content in The Book of Mormon that doesn’t meet the criteria of being… “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.” why hasn’t the Church removed it, or highlighted it as erroneous? The errors made during the 17th century production of the KJV Bible, and the chapters of Isaiah that are known to have been written long after Mormon had supposedly sealed up the record and died, do not meet the criteria of having been written by an ancient prophet or prophets, on gold plates, which where then quoted and abridged by a man called Mormon in the 1st Century.

Why does the Church continue to wilfully promote a lie*?

A faithful but truthful statement might read “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.
The book also contains some valuable material from the KJV Bible that was produced long after Mormon had died, which Joseph added in to the narrative under divine guidance and inspiration.”

…………………………………………………….

*I’m using the Church’s own definition of “lying” which is:

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

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

[Morley]

More often than not you stick to substance. What happened here?

Try to get you to respond to anything substantive is a useless endeavor.

What’s with the naked guy??

The image is of a painting by the French Impressionist Gustave Caillebotte, who lived in the Paris suburb of Petit-Gennevilliers, in the end of the Nineteenth Century.

Legend has it that, in the middle of his village's town square, there was a modest bulletin board where people would post comments about religion and politics. One day, Caillebotte posted this painting as a response to the bigoted ravings of a local lunatic who called himself Gymnastique Mentale. Though the painting is now known as "Homme au bain," at the time that he tacked it up, Caillebotte simply called it "Va te faire foutre."

[MG 2.0]

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

You’re so vague about everything I can only assume that’s deliberate.

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

None of which is relevant to the mistakes of 17th century men appearing, verbatim, in a record that is promoted as being 100% written prior to the end of the first century. In a tight, semi-tight, semi-loose, or loose translation, those 17th century mistakes show that claim to be false. At some point, somebody copied words from the 17th century and put them in a record that was supposed to be from the 1st century.

You’re wanting to discuss the how and who. Fine, let’s do that. Given God’s involvement, how did 17th century mistakes end up in a translation of a book supposedly written 1,348 years earlier?

1. God inspired Joseph to make those same mistakes when transmuting/transmitting/translating the Book of Mormon.
2. Joseph, or someone else involved, plagiarised the KJV Bible.
3. A committee of dead people pre-translated the plates at some point after the 17th century but before transmitting it to Joseph, and they plagiarised the KJV Bible not realising they were including content that was written later than the time period of the Book of Mormon and neither God, nor Jesus, nor Moroni, nor Mormon, nor Nephi, nor Lehi, corrected them before they pressed “send”.

So what happened?

First, some reference material that makes some important points:

Contextual Adaptation: While these parallels exist, many scholars note that the Book of Mormon adapts such phrases to its own context and theology.

Researchers like Royal Skousen (editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project) have examined these parallels in detail. They note that while some italicized words are retained, others are not, suggesting selective adoption rather than strict copying.

Studies estimate that dozens to over 100 instances of italicized words from the KJV appear in the same context in the Book of Mormon. However, not all passages with italicized words in the KJV are mirrored in the Book of Mormon, suggesting variability in how these words were handled during translation.

During the translation of the Book of Mormon and later the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, italicized words often served as focal points for emendation or clarification. In some cases, they were retained as is, while in others, they were removed or altered to align with perceived doctrinal or contextual insights

As I’ve mentioned earlier in this thread there are a lot of ‘moving parts’ in the time leading up to and the period of time during which the translation took place. I’ve mentioned ‘one to one’ translation. When it comes to what you refer to as ‘mistakes’ we see that at times these artifacts from the early KJ Bible translation are left intact at other times not. It’s not a strictly one to one correlation.

I wouldn’t word it the same way you do but I would not be surprised if all three possibilities you list at the end of your last post were involved in whatever ‘moving parts’ that were turning as the translation/transmutation took place.

There are just too many other things going on in the Book of Mormon for me to hop on board with you and put all my eggs in one basket as you are apparently willing to do. I’ve mentioned stylometry and Chiasmus as two examples. Complexity and Joseph’s age and background as another.

You may remember a while back some of Kyler Rasmussen’s research:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... vidence-1/

I think you are putting way too much confidence in Joseph Smith’s natural abilities. You would still have to explain the rest of the Book of Mormon. I don’t see this as a smoking gun as you do.

I do agree that the language used in the translation that parallels the Bible is an interesting corollary. Those ‘Easter eggs’ can be looked at from various perspectives. Some faith promoting and some not.

We are left to choose just like in so many other things dealing with faith.

God luck in your own journey.

Regards,
MG