Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Morley]

I think I know what you meant. You are a vulgar man. And trying to slip it under the radar.

Yeah. Nice.

You are not to be trusted.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I am vulgar man. And whether it's interpreted one way or the other, I'll own it. Do you really think that I was trying to slip something past you? Ha! I couldn't have made it more obvious.

However, you're right that you shouldn't trust me. When you linked a person's worth (whether they're a "good guy / bad guy" or whether you can trust what they say) based on their identity, you've moved into 'not trustworthy' territory.

You said repeatedly that you think it's all right to imply that someone might not be a good person because of what they are or what they believe. You're okay with someone making a the statement "Do not rely on the words of a Mormon…even if he comes across as a nice guy." "Do not rely on the words of a Christian…even if he comes across as a nice guy," "Do not rely on the words of a Mexican…even if he comes across as a nice guy," or your own ""Do not rely on the words of an Apostate. Even if he comes across as a nice guy." Then you add ";) (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)"

When I gave you a chance to back off, you doubled down. When I tried to make sure once more, you doubled down again. When I suggested that was offensive, you told me to stop wasting bandwidth and to get off my high horse.

A person's worth and credibility is not based on their religion or culture. You've made it clear you disagree. My response to that attitude stands.

But I guess you were right about one thing. Yes, you did hit a nerve.

[Morley]

That's an interesting legend, Morley.

The Scots dialect that I grew up with (just west of Glasgow) included a number of expressions that were derived from French and/or Latin, although I'm not sure how many of my fellow Scots were aware of that. One expression that my very proper granny used to use falls into that category.

When one of us grandchildren misbehaved, she would admonish us thusly: "Ach, malkie, don't be sic a wee fouter!"

She died long before I ever learned any French, but I don't think that, even as an adult, I would have had the temerity to explain that expression to her.

You cannot know how much I loved this, malkie. I sometimes wonder at what a grand life you've lived.

[malkie]

I think I know what you meant. You are a vulgar man. And trying to slip it under the radar.

Yeah. Nice.

You are not to be trusted.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I am vulgar man. And whether it's interpreted one way or the other, I'll own it. Do you really think that I was trying to slip something past you? Ha! I couldn't have made it more obvious.

However, you're right that you shouldn't trust me. When you linked a person's worth (whether they're a "good guy / bad guy" or whether you can trust what they say) based on their identity, you've moved into 'not trustworthy' territory.

You said repeatedly that you think it's all right to imply that someone might not be a good person because of what they are or what they believe. You're okay with someone making a the statement "Do not rely on the words of a Mormon…even if he comes across as a nice guy." "Do not rely on the words of a Christian…even if he comes across as a nice guy," "Do not rely on the words of a Mexican…even if he comes across as a nice guy," or your own ""Do not rely on the words of an Apostate…even if he comes across as a nice guy." Then you add ";) (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)"

When I gave you a chance to back off, you doubled down. When I tried to make sure once more, you doubled down again. When I suggested that was offensive, you told me to stop wasting bandwidth and to get off my high horse.

A person's worth and credibility is not based on their religion or culture. You've made it clear you disagree. My response to that attitude stands.

But I guess you were right about one thing. Yes, you did hit a nerve.

Morley, I think (as far as the painting goes) that you may simply be ahead of your time.

The most recent iteration of the temple garment is far removed from the original authorized patterns. What was formerly regarded as "porn shoulders" by the most faithful of saints - at least according to themselves - has been shown not to be a real issue, except in cold places, apparently.
(I remember when two-piece garments were reserved for servicemen, or others who might frequently be expected to be in their underwear in the presence of unendowed folks.)

So the top part of the male figure is probably not too vulgar.

If we are alive to see it, there may yet be a version in which the bottom (pun intended) part is likewise not a problem.

[malkie]

That's an interesting legend, Morley.

The Scots dialect that I grew up with (just west of Glasgow) included a number of expressions that were derived from French and/or Latin, although I'm not sure how many of my fellow Scots were aware of that. One expression that my very proper granny used to use falls into that category.

When one of us grandchildren misbehaved, she would admonish us thusly: "Ach, malkie, don't be sic a wee fouter!"

She died long before I ever learned any French, but I don't think that, even as an adult, I would have had the temerity to explain that expression to her.

You cannot know how much I loved this, malkie. I sometimes wonder at what a grand life you've lived.

Thanks, Morley. I'm glad you liked it.

For the most part I've had a fairly ordinary existence. But it has been punctuated by little flashes of life that shine a brief light on things beyond the mundane. I treasure these experiences, and enjoy sharing them from time to time.

This morning I was talking with my ENGinprogram buddy in Ukraine, and took the opportunity to include a few such anecdotes. They made a bit of a break from talking about the Russian war against her country.

[MG 2.0]

I think I know what you meant. You are a vulgar man. And trying to slip it under the radar.

Yeah. Nice.

You are not to be trusted.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I am vulgar man. And whether it's interpreted one way or the other, I'll own it. Do you really think that I was trying to slip something past you? Ha! I couldn't have made it more obvious.

However, you're right that you shouldn't trust me. When you linked a person's worth (whether they're a "good guy / bad guy" or whether you can trust what they say) based on their identity, you've moved into 'not trustworthy' territory.

You said repeatedly that you think it's all right to imply that someone might not be a good person because of what they are or what they believe. You're okay with someone making a the statement "Do not rely on the words of a Mormon…even if he comes across as a nice guy." "Do not rely on the words of a Christian…even if he comes across as a nice guy," "Do not rely on the words of a Mexican…even if he comes across as a nice guy," or your own ""Do not rely on the words of an Apostate. Even if he comes across as a nice guy." Then you add ";) (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)"

When I gave you a chance to back off, you doubled down. When I tried to make sure once more, you doubled down again. When I suggested that was offensive, you told me to stop wasting bandwidth and to get off my high horse.

A person's worth and credibility is not based on their religion or culture. You've made it clear you disagree. My response to that attitude stands.

But I guess you were right about one thing. Yes, you did hit a nerve.

Key phrase, “ he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?”

But then someone does something to help another see through the mask.

Mr. Wang, IHQ, and yourself let the mask slip. Enough to expose vulgarity. Extreme vulgarity. That tells me something. That person is not to be trusted to tell the truth. If they can treat another human being who they don’t know by telling them to go have sexual intercourse with oneself (how does that work?) or that (I won’t say it) one’s mother is vilified, or that an accusation, even if indirectly, that another person is an abuser of his wife…those things, in my book, cross the ‘vulgarity line’ and I am less prone to trust anything that person has to say.

I even question their mental health. That’s why I’ve had problems with Trump. His vulgarity. It makes it hard to trust anything he has to say completely. And here we have vulgarity expressed against another on this board even after I was hoping things could get better.

If a person can lie about one thing (something so extreme in the eyes of another) with a straight face and no remorse then they will be more than likely to have little or no compunction about lying about anything.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

If a person can lie about one thing (something so extreme in the eyes of another) with a straight face and no remorse then they will be more than likely to have little or no compunction about lying about anything.

Joseph Smith lied about how many wives he had. The Church is lying about the contents of The Book of Mormon. The Church lied about its finances to the regulatory bodies. One assumes you also agree (assuming you believe in consistency) that they will have little or no compunction about lying about anything else.

Finally we are on the same page.

[MG 2.0]

If a person can lie about one thing (something so extreme in the eyes of another) with a straight face and no remorse then they will be more than likely to have little or no compunction about lying about anything.

Joseph Smith lied about how many wives he had. The Church is lying about the contents of The Book of Mormon. The Church lied about its finances to the regulatory bodies. One assumes you also agree (assuming you believe in consistency) that they will have little or no compunction about lying about anything else.

Finally we are on the same page.

That, of course, are opinions that you have. Fine.

The fact remains, you and some others are not to be trusted. You don’t seem to defending your honor and/or integrity. . You’re simply trying to go the “well, he did it so I can do it” route.

You made an indirect vulgar attack on another. It was a lie.

Doesn’t work.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Joseph Smith lied about how many wives he had. The Church is lying about the contents of The Book of Mormon. The Church lied about its finances to the regulatory bodies. One assumes you also agree (assuming you believe in consistency) that they will have little or no compunction about lying about anything else.

Finally we are on the same page.

That, of course, are opinions that you have. Fine.

No, they aren’t opinions. Smith denied having more than one wife at a point in time when he had more than one wife. That’s not my opinion, that’s reality. The Church was found guilty of a comprehensive and deliberate financial misreporting. That’s not opinion, that’s what happened. The Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be. Not opinion, demonstrated fact.

Smith and the Church lied. So you must, by virtue of what you just said, mistrust everything else that Smith and the Church have told you.

Or were you misleading people when you said…

If a person can lie about one thing (something so extreme in the eyes of another) with a straight face and no remorse then they will be more than likely to have little or no compunction about lying about anything.

I mean, how can anyone trust anything you say when it’s obvious you don’t really mean what you say?

[Morley]

Key phrase, “ he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?”

No the key phrase that you defended, "Do not rely on the words of an Apostate. Even if he comes across as a nice guy."

Yes, MG, you hate vulgarity so much that you frequently tell other posters in this space to "grow a pair."

[MG 2.0]

That, of course, are opinions that you have. Fine.

No, they aren’t opinions. Smith denied having more than one wife at a point in time when he had more than one wife. That’s not my opinion, that’s reality. The Church was found guilty of a comprehensive and deliberate financial misreporting. That’s not opinion, that’s what happened. The Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be. Not opinion, demonstrated fact.

Smith and the Church lied. So you must, by virtue of what you just said, mistrust everything else that Smith and the Church have told you.

Or were you misleading people when you said…

If a person can lie about one thing (something so extreme in the eyes of another) with a straight face and no remorse then they will be more than likely to have little or no compunction about lying about anything.

I mean, how can anyone trust anything you say when it’s obvious you don’t really mean what you say?

You haven’t said anything that would lead me to trust you. On the other hand you have said something that leads me to distrust you. It will be difficult to carry on a conversation with you.

I’ll always be wondering when the next vulgarity or sexually based innuendo might arrive on the scene.

It’s too bad it has to be that way.

A vulgar mind is not to be trusted. At least not completely. There will always be reservations.

Regards,
MG