Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

...Never having to commit yourself to ever actually taking a position...
Empty vessels. I’ve had something to offer others. You’ve offered nothing...

No, you haven't offered anything other than a link you clearly didn't watch, which you can't discuss. My question stands:

I watched the video days ago. In my recollection during the debate these topics, and I’m sure others, were discussed...

You posted those topics today, implying they were discussed in the podcast. Why did you list them today if you don't remember if they are in the podcast from your OP?

[Marcus]

...Someone on this thread made light of the geographical research and tracking that’s been going on for a number of years now using LiDAR technology...

No one made light of lidar technology. The way apologists think it will vindicate their position re the historicity of the Book of Mormon, yes.

In honor of M.G.'s memory, I just watched the entire video.

There is nothing new at all....

Jacob also brings up Lidar a couple of times when asked why haven't any of the Book of Mormon cities been found. Apparently, Lidar is the answer because new cities are being found every day in Meso-America. It's just a matter of time folks. Keep paying your tithing and obey.

Ikr? I just finished watching National Geographic's series on the rise and fall of Mayan civilization. It was extremely well done in showing how lidar assists archeological research. I recommend it!

[I Have Questions]

Yes.

As I mentioned towards the front end of this thread, we typically reach a point in which we either continue round and round in circles or one or both parties accuse the other of stonewalling. It is at that (this) point that I lose interest. It just becomes a “prove it” or “you’re not answering my questions”.

As I said earlier, my mission has been accomplished on this thread. Unless there is something else brought to the forefront that I find of interest I’ll leave it others to continue.

Also, I have to hand it to you IHAQ, instead of a “wall of words” you do have a way of saying very little and also using few words to do so. Marcus, you typically do the same. I just don’t find this interesting.

But it’s easy peasy, right? Just throwing mud.

Never having to commit yourself to ever actually taking a position other than attacking the other and asking for proof.

Empty vessels. I’ve had something to offer others. You’ve offered nothing.

Regards,
MG

Nope, you’ve offered nothing. Readers and discussants still have no idea what, specifically, you found so compelling in Hansens piece that you figured it worthy of a thread here. Then, when people call you out on your vacuousness, you start accusing everyone else of the behaviour that you’re guilty of. It’s classic MG 2.0.

14 pages of his own thread, and he’s not given a single example from the video he linked to. Pathetic.

[Gadianton]

Earlier Gadianton asked me to give an example of bad apologetics in regards to the Book of Mormon. I gave him an A.I. list that I then said I supported.

1) This is a discussion board. treat A.I. answers like you'd treat any other link. Don't "wall of text."

2) Your A.I. answers didn't give examples neither did you: "an additional example of bad apologetics. That is, ANY apologetic...which God in His infinite wisdom..."

That's not an example of a bad apologetic -- it's not an example, it's a category. Here are examples of examples:

"When Bill Hamblin said NHM is statistically impossible, this was a bad apologetic."

"When my mission companion told the minister the Book of Mormon is true because he'd received a burning in his bosom, that was a bad apologetic."

"this guy on FAIR said that figure 23 of facsimile number 2 refers to J.D. Vance, but God in his infinite wisdom has kept the interpretation of that figure hidden, therefore it's a bad apologetic."

I'll lay my cards down: the reason I want examples is that I don't think that you will ever say that a believing member's argument from the faith in their heart is bad. I don't think facts matter to you in the least. It's easy to say things like, "If an apologetic commits a strawman fallacy, it's a bad apologetic." It's hard to say, Here is a strawman fallacy from Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos page 31: "......"

[Marcus]

Nope, you’ve offered nothing. Readers and discussants still have no idea what, specifically, you found so compelling in Hansens piece that you figured it worthy of a thread here. Then, when people call you out on your vacuousness, you start accusing everyone else of the behaviour that you’re guilty of. It’s classic MG 2.0...

Lol. He puts serious effort into this. I've never seen someone so clearly define their strategy, and then accuse others of exactly that!

[MG 2.0]

...Never having to commit yourself to ever actually taking a position...
Empty vessels. I’ve had something to offer others. You’ve offered nothing...

No, you haven't offered anything other than a link you clearly didn't watch, which you can't discuss. My question stands:

You posted those topics today, implying they were discussed in the podcast. Why did you list them today if you don't remember if they are in the podcast from your OP?

Anything in particular found in the debate that you would like to being to the forefront for discussion by others? Anything in the talk given by Elder Callister you would like to discuss? I’ve made it clear that I am pretty much on board with Jacob Hansen’s views in the debate and also those expressed in Elder Callister’s talk. I am not obligated to either rehash or outline either video. What I would find interesting…and I haven’t seen anyone engage yet…is a discussion amongst yourselves on any of the evidences and/or criticisms of the critics that are part of each presentation.

That would be interesting. Especially to lurkers and others who would be honored and humbled to sit at the feet of such an elite and well read crowd of non believers. The linked debate and Elder Callister’s talk should be ripe fodder for the esteemed critics that inhabit this board.

So far, no players. Methinks that the debate wasn’t watched in the main by those that are making it an ‘MG thread’ (par for the course) and are thus unable or unwilling to point out what they see as weaknesses in either Jacob’s arguments or Elder Callister’s.

Again, yes, I did watch the full debate and yes I watched Elder Callister’s presentation. Again, yes, I am in agreement with their views that were expressed. In Elder Callister’s case the transcript of one of his Book of Mormon presentations is posted along with one of those talks (he’s given a number of talks up to this point on the Book of Mormon and its critics).

Rather than defaulting to the same ol’ same ol’ (MG bashing) why not engage with the substance of either or both of these apologist’s arguments and point out their logical fallacies and/or other weaknesses in their arguments?

Yes, that would take some time (watch the videos) and effort (come up with rebuttals to their arguments).

My guess is that no one is willing to do so. It’s easier to shoot the messenger.

Sigh…

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Perhaps we should have A.I. do the work for us?

[MG 2.0]

Perhaps we should have A.I. do the work for us?

Here’s where you start:

https://www.youtube.com/live/9V_N0cRqzQ ... LJ8cul6A_m

https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/tad-r-ca ... god-given/

Then there is some effort at that point to express your many disagreements and responses (critical apologetics) as to why others that watch these presentations ought to beware.

Otherwise, I’m happy to simply let/encourage others watch and listen for themselves and discern whether or not the debate and Elder Callister’s presentation have any worth.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

No, you haven't offered anything other than a link you clearly didn't watch, which you can't discuss. My question stands:

Anything in particular found in the debate that you would like to being to the forefront for discussion by others? Anything in the talk given by Elder Callister you would like to discuss? I’ve made it clear that I am pretty much on board with Jacob Hansen’s views in the debate and also those expressed in Elder Callister’s talk. I am not obligated to either rehash or outline either video. What I would find interesting…and I haven’t seen anyone engage yet…is a discussion amongst yourselves on any of the evidences and/or criticisms of the critics that are part of each presentation.

That would be interesting. Especially to lurkers and others who would be honored and humbled to sit at the feet of such an elite and well read crowd of non believers. The linked debate and Elder Callister’s talk should be ripe fodder for the esteemed critics that inhabit this board.

So far, no players. Methinks that the debate wasn’t watched in the main by those that are making it an ‘MG thread’ (par for the course) and are thus unable or unwilling to point out what they see as weaknesses in either Jacob’s arguments or Elder Callister’s.

Again, yes, I did watch the full debate and yes I watched Elder Callister’s presentation. Again, yes, I am in agreement with their views that were expressed. In Elder Callister’s case the transcript of one of his Book of Mormon presentations is posted along with one of those talks (he’s given a number of talks up to this point on the Book of Mormon and its critics).

Rather than defaulting to the same ol’ same ol’ (MG bashing) why not engage with the substance of either or both of these apologist’s arguments and point out their logical fallacies and/or other weaknesses in their arguments?

Yes, that would take some time (watch the videos) and effort (come up with rebuttals to their arguments).

My guess is that no one is willing to do so. It’s easier to shoot the messenger.

Sigh…

Regards,
MG

Still nothing. Except the admission that MG 2.0 isn’t going to volunteer any of his personal insight into something specific from either the Hansen video, or the Callister talk, that he thinks is persuasive to answering the question he posed when he started the thread. As far as he’s concerned it’s not his responsibility to post any insight. He expects you to do it so he can sit back and watch. Like a voyeur.

Universal Board Rule 10
“ Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.”

MG 2.0 is flouting the rule.

[MG 2.0]

Well, Ok then.

Regards,
MG

I'm glad you posted this video, MG. I had no idea who Jacob Hansen was before this. It's interesting that this is the argument and spokesman that you think will appeal to those who are wavering in belief.

More power to you. You should post more.

IHAQ, You may not appreciate having the debate linked to, but others may feel differently.

I would say the same might be true in regards to Elder Callister’s talk.

Again, I’ve watched both. I think they have valuable content which may give critics such as yourself hissyfits. I think the information contained therein ought to be allowed to coexist with the constant ‘critical apologetics’ that exist on this board.

Feel free to take my challenge in regards to both the debate video and Elder Callister’s talk.

I, for one, would enjoy your thoughtful responses.

Regards,
MG