The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_Tator]

Then I have no interest in conversation with you right now.

Lemmie has constructed a false narrative. I am calling her out.

No sidetracks. I am waiting to hear from her.

Regards,
MG

Your age is being betrayed by your immaturity.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think mentalgymnast doesn't quite understand that people are referring to his intellectual dishonesty based on how he approaches a debate--as usual he is presenting himself as a martyr for his religious beliefs but his dishonesty and disingenuousness are entirely separate from that.

For example, he started this 25 page thread with this...

I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it...

It's really that simple...isn't it?

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book.

But in the middle of the thread, when asked to explain, after a lot of deflecting, he posts this...

Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both. That Joseph's world is in in the ancient and the ancient is in his. The Book of Mormon is a composite of both the ancient and the modern and whatever comes in between. Including possible modifications in order to fit the actual message and/or doctrines that are being taught.

Even though Chap pointed out that his allusions to Ostler's theory were not in agreement with his initial position, he never did actually say anything about it, other than it's been a long time since he read it and he doesn't really remember! He did ask others, repeatedly, to read him and explain the theory to him.

And now, he is back to this:

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the result of Divine Intervention in the affairs of men and that it is an artifact from an ancient world in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ spoke with and directed/guided the affairs and doings of a 'branch of Israel' through prophets.

Lemmie: Stuff like this is where the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness comes from.

Lemmie has created a false narrative. I have called her out on it and have not seen a response. She cannot show that her concluding statement has any basis in fact. I challenge her to go through this post and show where I have been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Then I have no interest in conversation with you right now.

Lemmie has constructed a false narrative. I am calling her out.

No sidetracks. I am waiting to hear from her.

Regards,
MG

Your age is being betrayed by your immaturity.

I don't think so. I do think, however, that I deserve a response from Lemmie.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You show no interest in conversation with anyone, much less me.

That is patently untrue. The first part anyway. Having a conversation with you right now? Not interested.

I'm waiting to hear what Lemmie has to say in response to my post.

No sidetracks.

Thanks,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I won't change from who I am. But I do evolve.

Staggering.

Why do you say that? Please be specific. There is not a contradiction here in what I said...if that's what you're thinking.

*bump for IHAQ

There seems to be a comprehension issue/problem here. And I don't think it's me.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I think mentalgymnast doesn't quite understand that people are referring to his intellectual dishonesty based on how he approaches a debate--as usual he is presenting himself as a martyr for his religious beliefs but his dishonesty and disingenuousness are entirely separate from that.

For example, he started this 25 page thread with this...

I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it...

It's really that simple...isn't it?

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book.

But in the middle of the thread, when asked to explain, after a lot of deflecting, he posts this...

Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both. That Joseph's world is in in the ancient and the ancient is in his. The Book of Mormon is a composite of both the ancient and the modern and whatever comes in between. Including possible modifications in order to fit the actual message and/or doctrines that are being taught.

Even though Chap pointed out that his allusions to Ostler's theory were not in agreement with his initial position, he never did actually say anything about it, other than it's been a long time since he read it and he doesn't really remember! He did ask others, repeatedly, to read him and explain the theory to him.

And now, he is back to this:

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the result of Divine Intervention in the affairs of men and that it is an artifact from an ancient world in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ spoke with and directed/guided the affairs and doings of a 'branch of Israel' through prophets.

Lemmie: Stuff like this is where the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness comes from.

Lemmie has created a false narrative. I have called her out on it and have not seen a response. She cannot show that her concluding statement has any basis in fact. I challenge her to go through this post and show where I have been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

Regards,
MG

You're "calling me out"? Please. If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

[_Lemmie]

Then I have no interest in conversation with you right now.

Lemmie has constructed a false narrative. I am calling her out.

No sidetracks. I am waiting to hear from her.

Regards,
MG

Your age is being betrayed by your immaturity.

I don't think so. I do think, however, that I deserve a response from Lemmie.

Regards,
MG

If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

[_Lemmie]

You show no interest in conversation with anyone, much less me.

That is patently untrue. The first part anyway. Having a conversation with you right now? Not interested.

I'm waiting to hear what Lemmie has to say in response to my post.

No sidetracks.

Thanks,
MG

If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

[_mentalgymnast]

You're "calling me out"? Please. If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

Yes, I am calling you out as being intellectually dishonest and would go as far as to call you a liar by creating a false narrative and passing it off as you did and attacking my good name.

Your avoidance of my request can be seen for what it is.

How many times have you done this and gotten away with it in times past?

As I said a few weeks ago, silly me.

Check my sig line.

The burden of proof is on you, lady, to back up your concluding comment in the post being questioned. The onus is not on me to prove and/or show you anything at this point.

The game/jig is up.

Own up. Put up...or shut up.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

You're "calling me out"? Please. If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

Yes, I am calling you out as being intellectually dishonest and would go as far as to call you a liar by creating a false narrative and passing it off as you did and attacking my good name.

Your avoidance of my request can be seen for what it is.

How many times have you done this and gotten away with it in times past?

As I said a few weeks ago, silly me.

Check my sig line.

The burden of proof is on you, lady, to back up your concluding comment in the post being questioned. The onus is not on me to prove and/or show you anything at this point.

The game/jig is up.

Own up. Put up...or shut up.

Regards,
MG

I think mentalgymnast doesn't quite understand that people are referring to his intellectual dishonesty based on how he approaches a debate--as usual he is presenting himself as a martyr for his religious beliefs but his dishonesty and disingenuousness are entirely separate from that.

For example, he started this 25 page thread with this...

I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it...

It's really that simple...isn't it?

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book.

But in the middle of the thread, when asked to explain, after a lot of deflecting, he posts this...

Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both. That Joseph's world is in in the ancient and the ancient is in his. The Book of Mormon is a composite of both the ancient and the modern and whatever comes in between. Including possible modifications in order to fit the actual message and/or doctrines that are being taught.

Even though Chap pointed out that his allusions to Ostler's theory were not in agreement with his initial position, he never did actually say anything about it, other than it's been a long time since he read it and he doesn't really remember! He did ask others, repeatedly, to read him and explain the theory to him.

And now, he is back to this:

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the result of Divine Intervention in the affairs of men and that it is an artifact from an ancient world in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ spoke with and directed/guided the affairs and doings of a 'branch of Israel' through prophets.

Stuff like this is where the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness comes from.

If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.