Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Morley]

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

Sometimes, when the message is bogus, the messenger deserves to be shot. I gave my critique of Hansen, back on page 8. You ignored it. All of that is fine, as long as you don't then whinge endlessly about how nobody is viewing and responding.

Hansen's whole argument can be reduced to: "If you can get yourself to believe in The Bible, then you can also get yourself to believe The Book of Mormon."

I think that argument is hopelessly weak. It's like declaring that, if you thought Babe Ruth was a great home run hitter, then you will really like Mike Trout!

If that's not enough, an even worse argument was Hansen's closing statement about how Mormons are good people--and because of that, you should give The Book of Mormon a try.

It's sad, MG, that you feel the need to champion an apologetic that's this lame. It's depressing that this is what the LDS apologetic enterprise has been reduced to.

[I Have Questions]

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

You didn’t properly read and comprehend the humour within Morley’s post, did you?

What point or points, specifically, within Hansens video do you think will give an LDS critic a “hissy fit”? If there’s too many points, just pick maybe the one you think is the most likely, and explain it to the audience on your thread.

[Gadianton]

I think the information contained therein ought to be allowed to coexist with the constant ‘critical apologetics’ that exist on this board

Except that information doesn't coexist because you're not presenting any of it. A link was indexed by your guest bots, but nobody on the fence will likely ever see it. To use a missionary analogy, you invented a super low bar to hop over to make yourself feel better. It's like a set of missionaries who don't want to work who enjoy their bike ride to the area and then knock on one door, hand out a pamphlet, and then go back to their boarding to sleep the rest of the day. They justify their low effort by saying if the Lord prepared that one house, then they now have the seed planted and the household could be on their wan to conversion. Who's to say? Any room for God?

However, while your fictional accounts are failing to produce the outcome you imagine, the real reason you posted the link, to troll, is working, so you are winning something.

[Chap]

Me, I don't follow believers in the street asking them to prove stuff. That would be rude.

If on the other hand they affirm religious propositions as being true in the context of a public discussion into which they have freely entered, why yes, then I do expect them to give me solid reasons for their assertions. If they are unable and unwilling to do so, I have the right to attend to something more interesting and potentially fruitful.

And one thing they certainly need to explain is what this word 'god' that they keep using actually refers to. Where is this thing, what is it, and how can we answer questions about it on a rational and evidence-based way? Why and when did they start using it? (In early every case, the answer will be something like "my parents talked about it a lot when I was a kid, and they seemed to think it was important". Hmmm...)

In a rational and evidence based way please explain how the world as we experience it came into being. Step by step. Unless you can do so am I still obligated to believe that a creator was not involved in the processes that determined the existence of this place we call home?

On your word?

Regards,
MG

I composed a rather long reply to this post, and saved it as a draft, since I had to get on with other stuff. Now I have deleted what I wrote, since I see now that I had missed the trick you pulled.

I wrote in my post about a board member's right to demand, from religious believers who come to this and other places of public discussion to affirm religious propositions, clear and logical replies to questions and objections. And it is also reasonable to ask such people for an explanation of, as I said

"what this word 'god' that they keep using actually refers to. Where is this thing, what is it, and how can we answer questions about it on a rational and evidence-based way? Why and when did they start using it? (In early every case, the answer will be something like "my parents talked about it a lot when I was a kid, and they seemed to think it was important". Hmmm...)"

Perhaps unable or unwilling to deal with that, you now switch to asking whether you are, in my view, "obligated to believe that a creator was not involved in the processes that determined the existence of this place we call home".

To which my response is that what you believe in your own private and personal capacity is something that does not concern me in the least. Believe what you like, if that's what you need to get through life (which apparently it is). But in this forum, if you keep on using the more or less undefined label 'god' as your ultimate and question-quenching explanation for everything, you must expect to have it pointed out from time to time that the value of this tactic is little more than that of a pitcher of warm expectoration.

[MG 2.0]

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

You didn’t properly read and comprehend the humour within Morley’s post, did you?

What point or points, specifically, within Hansens video do you think will give an LDS critic a “hissy fit”? If there’s too many points, just pick maybe the one you think is the most likely, and explain it to the audience on your thread.

Hi IHAQ, for fun I scrolled through the debate and stopped at a random point and listened to what was being discussed. At the 1:18 mark and moving into the next couple or so minutes you will hear Jacob mention that Joseph didn’t have any real idea where the narrative in the Book of Mormon took place. He was open to various theories.

Then if we do further study we find:

On September 8, 1841, John Bernhisel, a recent Latter-day Saint convert in New York City, wrote to Joseph Smith informing him that he had sent him a copy of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan “as a token of my regard for you as a Prophet of the Lord.”[4] On November 16, 1842, Joseph Smith responded to Bernhisel and thanked him for the gift:
I received your kind present by the hand of Er [Elder] Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.[5]

https://rsc.BYU.edu/approaching-antiqui ... ook-Mormon

If you read the article by Roper you will see that the original criticisms of the Book of Mormon were in some respects put aside through the research and writing that came after the Book of Mormon was published.

This has also happened relative to other Book of Mormon concerns of the early critics that were later alleviated/explained through later research.

Point being that in this particular debate I linked you to there are instances throughout the video in which Jacob brings up things that are worth pursuing in regards to Book of Mormon apologetics and study. This being just one.

My expectation, as I’ve already mentioned, is that there will be some that read this thread (not you, of course) that will watch the video links and find some information that they can then do further research. I would hate for anyone to come into this forum and rely solely upon the board critics exclusively for their information as it is pretty much all one sided.

That’s why I earlier said that more information, at least in regards to Book of Mormon Studies is always better than less. I would suggest to lurkers and other seekers to seek out information from as many different sources as possible and not rely upon my word or the words of critics who in many cases, at least on this board, don’t even believe in God. They see all this as hocus pocus at the outset.

BYU Religious Studies Center is a good resource.

Some folks watching the debate between Jacob and the representative that is well read in Catholic belief and doctrine may not have even been aware that Joseph was interested in various views in regards to where the Book of Mormon lands might have been located. He didn’t seem to have had any certain geography in mind when the translation process occurred.

Anyway, there is just one part and parcel of the debate in which a point was made that is/was worth further exploration by those seeking truth rather than soundbites from critics.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In a rational and evidence based way please explain how the world as we experience it came into being. Step by step. Unless you can do so am I still obligated to believe that a creator was not involved in the processes that determined the existence of this place we call home?

On your word?

Regards,
MG

I composed a rather long reply to this post, and saved it as a draft, since I had to get on with other stuff. Now I have deleted what I wrote, since I see now that I had missed the trick you pulled.

I wrote in my post about a board member's right to demand, from religious believers who come to this and other places of public discussion to affirm religious propositions, clear and logical replies to questions and objections. And it is also reasonable to ask such people for an explanation of, as I said

"what this word 'god' that they keep using actually refers to. Where is this thing, what is it, and how can we answer questions about it on a rational and evidence-based way? Why and when did they start using it? (In early every case, the answer will be something like "my parents talked about it a lot when I was a kid, and they seemed to think it was important". Hmmm...)"

Perhaps unable or unwilling to deal with that, you now switch to asking whether you are, in my view, "obligated to believe that a creator was not involved in the processes that determined the existence of this place we call home".

To which my response is that what you believe in your own private and personal capacity is something that does not concern me in the least. Believe what you like, if that's what you need to get through life (which apparently it is). But in this forum, if you keep on using the more or less undefined label 'god' as your ultimate and question-quenching explanation for everything, you must expect to have it pointed out from time to time that the value of this tactic is little more than that of a pitcher of warm expectoration.

So apparently you’re not going to take me up on it. Apparently you think that this place we call home came into being from start to chocolate ice cream in a purely undirected and random fashion.

I’m simply saying, “I don’t believe it”. Your belief in ultimate nothingness.

For me, I choose God the Creator. Ultimate purpose.

As a result we will talk past each other, but that’s OK. All voices are welcome here. Yours as much as mine. I welcome your predisposition and heartfelt ‘calling’,of sorts, to put the silliness of belief in God on display.

It’s easy to ‘take down’ a believer. You have your five senses to prove everything rationally. The thing is, you have those five senses…and no more (other avenues to what is ‘true’) …in your estimation/opinion.

Once you take down a believer because they can’t prove anything to you ONLY with the tools, methods, and means that are acceptable to the materialist, then game over dude.

And that is where we disagree.

But again, that’s OK.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You didn’t properly read and comprehend the humour within Morley’s post, did you?

What point or points, specifically, within Hansens video do you think will give an LDS critic a “hissy fit”? If there’s too many points, just pick maybe the one you think is the most likely, and explain it to the audience on your thread.

Hi IHAQ, for fun I scrolled through the debate and stopped at a random point and listened to what was being discussed. At the 1:18 mark and moving into the next couple or so minutes you will hear Jacob mention that Joseph didn’t have any real idea where the narrative in the Book of Mormon took place.

So, you had to randomly scroll through a debate you "already listened to", to find a talking point. I put "already listened to" in quotes, because it's absolutely clear you didn't.

[Marcus]

Apparently you think that this place we call home came into being from start to chocolate ice cream...

Oh wow, do i love auto-correct.

[MG 2.0]

Hi IHAQ, for fun I scrolled through the debate and stopped at a random point and listened to what was being discussed. At the 1:18 mark and moving into the next couple or so minutes you will hear Jacob mention that Joseph didn’t have any real idea where the narrative in the Book of Mormon took place.

So, you had to randomly scroll through a debate you "already listened to", to find a talking point. I put "already listened to" in quotes, because it's absolutely clear you didn't.

I did. My point is that one can randomly scroll through the debate and start at that point and find some worthwhile point being made worth exploration.

You didn’t pick up on that.

I notice you are focused on that which is of no worth rather than engaging in argument. What do YOU think about the point being made in regards to Joseph seemingly not having any firm idea about Book of Mormon geography all the way up through the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon. And then ten years later he has access to information that wasn’t available to him before that confirms to him that there might be a real world Book of Mormon geography.

He wasn’t even expecting that this might happen. Yet out of the blue, proof of the types of things the Book of Mormon was describing within its pages when published years before and critics were making fun of it because it didn’t describe the Indians THEY were familiar with.

Interesting, huh?

Brought up in Hansen’s video along with a lot of other stuff.

Watch it, you might learn something.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Apparently you think that this place we call home came into being from start to chocolate ice cream...

Oh wow, do i love auto-correct.

I purposefully wrote that. No auto correct.

Marcus, you’re wasting bandwidth.

Regards,
MG