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

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Approximately zero. He's about as centrist as Moinmoin is interested in knowing if there's anything untrue about Mormonism.

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

Would you care to make a list of "Church approved narratives" that you consider to be those that are suspect? And by church approved, we mean doctrinally based, right?

Your original question was fine. No problem

You claim to be a centrist, but has there been any Church-approved narratives about the Book of Mormon you 100% believe are false?

I don't have a problem with it at all. I'm simply asking for some specificity. Not "weaseling" at all. Care to be more specific?

Regards,
MG

*bump

[_Lemmie]

Approximately zero. He's about as centrist as Moinmoin is interested in knowing if there's anything untrue about Mormonism.

- Doc

So... epsilon? defined as a number as close to zero as you can possibly get while still being strictly greater than zero. You know, just to allow for the possibility an angel might make him do it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm.

MG,

What is untrue about the Book of Mormon and how has that moved you to a centrist position?

- Doc

[_Chap]

Some people make no claim to anything so grand as 'spiritual experiences'. Some do. But what they report experiencing is clearly explicable in terms of their upbringing and experience. That's why it is extremely unlikely that it reflects some kind of perception of an objective reality underlying the phenomenal world.

I don't think you either have read and/or understand what I've been saying...and have said over a long period of time. You stick to the same programmed responses, no matter what might be said that might actually add a different dimension to the conversation. It gets a bit tiresome to interject and/or share some divergent ways of looking at the 'same ol', same ol' and get responses that demonstrate show lack of comprehension or aq continued parroting of fundamentalist and/or black and white views...

Hi Chap. Sadly, this is the part of the thread where mentalgymnast begins his pattern of defining other people's posts using the same comments that other people have said about him. His comments to you are nonsensical projection; his responses have been nothing if not programmed, and he can't even answer a yes or no question, let alone produce "divergent ways of looking" at something.

Mentalgymnast's parroting pattern is bizarre but utterly predictable. Thankfully, there was a lot of fascinating information imparted in this thread to distract from his contrarian pathology.

Yup. I'm quite used to it. It goes like this:

MG: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Posters: No there aren't, We've looked carefully, and there are no signs of any small human-like creatures with filmy wings and magic wands, at the end of your garden or anywhere else on your property. We've even tried infra-red night vision goggles. Besides, physiology shows that humanoid creatures of that size are simply non-viable - just think of the required rate of energy intake given their surface to volume ratio. There aren't any fairies there, in any normal sense of the words 'are' or 'there'. And there never could have been.

MG: I don't think you either have read and/or understand what I've been saying...and have said over a long period of time. You stick to the same programmed responses, no matter what might be said that might actually add a different dimension to the conversation. It gets a bit tiresome to interject and/or share some divergent ways of looking at the 'same ol', same ol' and get responses that demonstrate show lack of comprehension or aq continued parroting of fundamentalist and/or black and white views...

And so on, and so forth.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hrm.

MG,

What is untrue about the Book of Mormon and how has that moved you to a centrist position?

- Doc

You originally asked this question:

You claim to be a centrist, but has there been any Church-approved narratives about the Book of Mormon you 100% believe are false?

I would be happy to respond. I am simply asking that you clarify what those "Church-approved narratives" are. Is there a problem with that? Isn't this about the third time or so now where I've asked you for some clarification in regards to what you consider to be Church approved so that I can narrow down my response to you? I've been patient and willing...but you seem to be moving the goalposts?

At this point I am doubtful that you are able to give me a list of what those Church-approved narratives are, although I don't see why it ought to be too difficult for you to do so.

Why did you change the question and become disinterested in your first one?

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm.

MG,

What is untrue about the Book of Mormon and how has that moved you to a centrist position?

- Doc

You originally asked this question:

You claim to be a centrist, but has there been any Church-approved narratives about the Book of Mormon you 100% believe are false?

I would be happy to respond. I am simply asking that you clarify what those "Church-approved narratives" are. Is there a problem with that? Isn't this about the third time or so now where I've asked you for some clarification in regards to what you consider to be Church approved so that I can narrow down my response to you? I've been patient and willing...but you seem to be moving the goalposts?

At this point I am doubtful that you are able to give me a list of what those Church-approved narratives are, although I don't see why it ought to be too difficult for you to do so.

Why did you change the question and become disinterested in your first one?

Regards,
MG

I was trying to avoid what you're doing right now. Which is weaseling around a plain and clear RFI. I've simplified the original question twice now. I know you're not going to answer the question, as is your M.O., and this is simply to demonstrate your true position to the observer you're a True Blue Mormon apologist attempting to shoehorn in truth where none exists. You're not a "centrist", and I don't know why you continue to put that out there.

Anyway. In case you actually answer the question, I'm asking you for information, and there's no need to further simplify the request. You're an adult. You can choose to answer it or not.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

by the way, folks, I am sorry that you are having to see this thread go downhill at this point. It WAS a good thread with lots of interesting stuff going on here and there.

I enjoyed it...and I learned a lot.

What did you learn?

- Doc

[Guest]

...And so on, and so forth.

Back to the psycho-babble, silly 'fairy' comparisons that seemingly (but don't) prove a point, and...well, avoiding the fact that you don't have anything more to add to the conversation besides saying, "I'm right, you're wrong...and you're an idiot and/or can't be trusted".

Yup, some of these threads do come down to simple 'party loyalty' and throwing mud at the 'other'.

by the way, you didn't quote my entire post earlier. Here is what I said:

I don't think you either have read and/or understand what I've been saying...and have said over a long period of time. You stick to the same programmed responses, no matter what might be said that might actually add a different dimension to the conversation. It gets a bit tiresome to interject and/or share some divergent ways of looking at the 'same ol', same ol' and get responses that demonstrate show lack of comprehension or a continued parroting of fundamentalist and/or black and white views that may have been one of the reasons that you left the church in the first place. Assuming that you were a member at one time. If not, then I say you have a myopic view of how Mormonism may/can connect/dovetail with what we actually see in the world. Including the world in which we see many folks claiming spiritual insight and/or experience(s).

You are committed to seeing the world differently. Different folks that have varying religious/spiritual inclinations and experiences mean one thing to you and another thing to me. Rather than engaging you simply cry..."No, you're wrong and I'm right." You see spiritual experiences as being man made...period...with no other possibilities in the running. I differ. We clash. You ask for evidence. And so it goes...

Recently on this thread when we were talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water and spiritual experiences (pg. 21...I invite others to go back and read...). There we had this short little interchange:

MG: There is a lot of "throw the baby out with the bath water" mentality around here.

Chap: You point to a bath that appears to be entirely empty, and keep asking us to be careful what we throw out.

MG: It is on this point that we diverge. I don't think the bath is "empty". Go back and read my last two posts. It's not a simple as you would like to make it.

Here's the thing, Chap. The world is a BIG place. Millions/billions of people. Would you expect...on the assumption that there IS a creator/God...that all of these folks would be having 'carbon copy' spiritual experiences?

I don't.

It doesn't make any SENSE to think that they/we would. We're all SO different. Environment. Predispositions. Aptitudes...you name it.

This is unacceptable to you, by default. OTOH (and again it may be necessary to go back and read the complete conversation we were having), there...in my view... need not be a conflict with the fact that people have varying types of experiences in regards to their spiritual life. There are a number of possibilities to consider OTHER than simply throwing "the baby out with the bathwater."

I stick to my conviction...which I have expressed in one way or the other over a long period of time...that I believe some critics have a very myopic view of the world and its possibilities. You have contracted yourself into a 'tight view' of reality that cannot be relinquished.

So when it comes to these kinds of discussions we reach a point at which the 'divide is wide' and we reach an impasse.

That's the problem.

It's not fairies, blah, blah, blah...

You typically resort to 'attacking the messenger' rather than engaging with the message when things my not be going the direction that you would like and/or want to have control over. This is something I've noticed also on this thread and others.

Also, it seems to be that there are folks that would like to be the final arbitrators of what can and can't be discussed and/or the questions that can either be asked or answered.

Control freaks and/or 'puppet masters', to put a fine point on it.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

by the way, folks, I am sorry that you are having to see this thread go downhill at this point. It WAS a good thread with lots of interesting stuff going on here and there.

I enjoyed it...and I learned a lot.

What did you learn?

- Doc

Primarily, some of the stuff that honor posted in regards to Jacob 5. I thought that was quite interesting. It caused me to go and do some further reading in which I learned even more. Often, when I read things that others have to say on this board it pushes me to go out and do further research/reading/thinking. It is THEN that I find myself increasing my awareness/understanding and learning new things.

Regards,
MG