Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Gadianton]

It's also worth saying that MG's idea of a father-child model, where we're literally children and pray to a literal father, doesn't have any unique appeal except to Mormons who already believe it.

There's nothing interesting about being a biological father. Many fathers are terrible to their children and many don't even know their children. What MG has in mind is the 1950s model of a family where the Beaver's dad is a kind, knowing, and wise mentor. And there is this relationship where the child asks for guidance with respect and father has the answer. We also, can pray to our father and get advice just like the Beaver.

Ceeboo's model makes far more sense. God equates to a powerful king, perhaps the most powerful king, as the best analogy to humans at the time. Jesus being the son of God makes him royalty. It doesn't make him Wally Cleaver. Royalty is only "royal" if it's exceptionally privileged, where the vast majority of people are commoners and poor as dirt. It makes far more sense in the analogy, to say that the commoner can be adopted into the royal family. Because "narrow is the way and few there be that find it" we can expect there won't be more royals than commoners, thus making the concept of royalty meaningless.

Now MG is going to ask about fairness. Shouldn't everyone be God's children? It's self-contradictory to say everyone is "royalty". What he's really saying is the sense in which Christ is the son of God in the Bible isn't fair. Royalty isn't fair. Sure, I agree. But that requires the thing he hates the most, humanism, to arbitrate what's fair. Jeremy Bentham did more for the framework for his religious beliefs than Joseph Smith or any of his prophets, or figures from the Bible.

[Morley]

MG, there are good arguments to be made for Christianity, for a life or faith, and for Mormonism. Several on this board, at times, have advanced some of those arguments. They've done this effectively enough that the points they've made have given me pause. You, yourself, are not making these arguments.

You will often pick some silly point that you've stumbled across that you think is a game changer. You then defend this point by whatever means necessary, often long past a point that makes any sense. You seemingly don't mind being a little dishonest when you do this--and in doing this, I'm sure that you're thinking that the ends justify the means.

This isn't helping any lurkers that the board may have to grow or justify their faith. Get better arguments. Be honest in the way you use them. Back off and acknowledge when you're wrong. Personally, I know that I have to work on these things all the time.

I hope you will keep posting here. It's just that I think that you can do so more successfully.

[Chap]

I am sorry - but can you clarify whether the two sentences above represent your own view of the history of the ancient population of the British Isles?

Or is it it just the view of the 'Dr Kek' to whose X post you link?

Don't worry about me personally. The information is either true or false irrespective of the person bringing the Idea forward.

Ad hominems are fallacious.

On a discussion board (the clue is in the name), it is reasonable to ask whether a poster does in fact hold to the view they have quoted, in this case that "the British Isles were colonized by remnant of the Israelites, particularly the tribe of Dan but also other Israelites." If you do, I'd like to ask you for a brief summary of why you believe this to be the case.

[MG 2.0]

“Traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism have all incorporated personal prayer into their religious practices for centuries, with roots often extending back thousands of years. The universality of personal prayer speaks to its fundamental importance in human spirituality across cultures and religions.”

Yes or no. Was Jesus the first one among the sages of the world to teach his followers to pray to their Father in Heaven?

Jesus said that “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?”

The Father being in the likeness of a man.

I haven’t argued the fact, that various religions have worshipped their deities.

As I’ve repeatedly said, Jesus was different. First he claims to be the Son of God but then he teaches his disciples that:

1. Jesus is in the likeness of the Father.
2. They should pray to the Father.
3. God is their Father.

Up until Jesus came there wasn’t a complete understanding of who and what God was/is. Jesus changed that. Yes, the creeds later morphed things and we end up with many millions praying to the Holy Saints and Mary the mother of God.

Latter Day Saints pray to the Father in the name of Jesus (yes, as do many other Christians) knowing that they are praying to a Being who is in the likeness of Jesus Christ. A being in whose image we ourselves are created.

All of the examples you had your A.I. list were either deities or gods that did not have the attributes of God in which Jesus taught his disciples to pray to. Somewhat amorphous.

I’m not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. We’ve been at this a while now.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG, there are good arguments to be made for Christianity, for a life or faith, and for Mormonism. Several on this board, at times, have advanced some of those arguments. They've done this effectively enough that the points they've made have given me pause. You, yourself, are not making these arguments.

You will often pick some silly point that you've stumbled across that you think is a game changer. You then defend this point by whatever means necessary, often long past a point that makes any sense. You seemingly don't mind being a little dishonest when you do this--and in doing this, I'm sure that you're thinking that the ends justify the means.

This isn't helping any lurkers that the board may have to grow or justify their faith. Get better arguments. Be honest in the way you use them. Back off and acknowledge when you're wrong. Personally, I know that I have to work on these things all the time.

I hope you will keep posting here. It's just that I think that you can do so more successfully.

So well said. Thank you.

[I Have Questions]

Addressing MG’s constant changing of the criteria of his assertion about Jesus…

This path you’re on, left unchecked, could easily see you demanding to know if there were any other examples where someone with sandals, who lived in Galilee, between 1BC and 30AD, who’s mother was called Mary, who claimed to be the Son of God? Then claim Jesus was unique because no one else fits the convoluted criteria you’ve contrived to confirm your preconceived conclusion.

Did I call it, or did I call it?

[MG 2.0]

If you’re so convinced by your religion, and are keen to do missionary work, why aren’t you serving a senior mission for the Church?

A few years ago my wife and I moved her parents from Idaho to the private community we live in so that she and I can help them maintain a lifestyle that they deserve. One is 96 and the other 91 years old. They require daily interaction and help with meals, doctor, companionship, etc.

My dad lives within a couple of miles from us. He is 91. I’m his ‘go to’ person. We’ve set a priority of helping our aged parents so they don’t have to go into assisted living before we don’t have any choice. We are their caregivers for now. That is our senior mission for now.

This board does give me an opportunity to do some missionary service. Just as you have your purposes here, so do I. I allow you to serve your needs as you feel it necessary to do what you do here. I would expect that you would allow me to do the same.

My wife and I also have callings and serve in our ward. We may serve a mission later. We’ll see what life brings.

I hope that helps you as you seem to find it necessary to make ‘judgement calls’ on other people’s lives that you don’t even know.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If you were really convinced that your beliefs are what people need to hear, you’d be on a senior mission right now, or spending time in the community doing “helping hands” service. But you’re not.

IHAQ, may I say, you’re a jerk.

In addition to our service to my wife’s parents and my dad, I work with two non-profits.

Sleep in Heavenly Peace

Lifting Hands International.

Look them up. Donate!

We can use the help.

Get off your smelly, stinking, judgmental high horse.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[You may not be] helping any lurkers that the board may have to grow or justify their faith.

I’ll let them be the judge. One thing they ought to know and I’ve mentioned it many times, I’m just a regular guy. I’m not a trained apologist of any sort. I simply express my own thoughts and opinions and also bring in what I believe to be interesting and relevant source material.

I speak from experience and my own study and prayer. I don’t speak for anyone else and do not make claims for being anything more than what I am. A retired educator, married father of four, and life long learner. I have no pretenses.

Oh, and a runner. Dressed for it right now…and ready to head out the door.

Beautiful day.

Regards,
MG

[ceeboo]

Hey Gad

Ceeboo's model makes far more sense. God equates to a powerful king, perhaps the most powerful king, as the best analogy to humans at the time. Jesus being the son of God makes him royalty. It doesn't make him Wally Cleaver. Royalty is only "royal" if it's exceptionally privileged, where the vast majority of people are commoners and poor as dirt. It makes far more sense in the analogy, to say that the commoner can be adopted into the royal family. Because "narrow is the way and few there be that find it" we can expect there won't be more royals than commoners, thus making the concept of royalty meaningless.

To add a bit more depth (From my view)

Adopted: Removes claims based on family lineage and/or entitlement - removes any false implications that this is about Jew/gentile - Allows for any/all to become a child of God. It correlates to the term "born again Christian" as being born again spiritually (See John 3 - Nicodemus - Spiritual birth)

Inheritance: The child of a father does not earn their inheritance. In an earthly sense, a father gives what they had to their child upon their death. In a Father God sense: The Father gives (shares) what they have (not "had" because God isn't dead (sorry Nietzsche)) with His children who also have not earned it. This is no say, we are talking about a gift - freely given - available to all - having not earned.