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

[_honorentheos]

From the OP -

Coming back from my daughter's house today I was listening to KBYU radio in my truck and heard the following recording of a Devotional Forum at BYU on November 2016 given by Tad R. Callister, the Sunday School General President. I think it is worth the listen. Puts everything into a nutshell, in my opinion.

I still haven't figured out why MG started this thread.

To see/understand if there was/is or might be anything 'new under the sun' that would convince me...or others...that the tried and true arguments of the critics are anything but 'thin'. This is as good as place as any to see if there's anything new under the sun in regards to this inquiry/interest on my part.

Or why a centrist, moderate Mormon would be listening to KBYU to pass the time while driving over any of the other options available.

When I leave for work early in the morning I either listen to NPR or KBYU Classical Music. Depends on the mood. The day I listened to this Devotional I had listened to music in the morning. When I started the drive home and turned on the radio, this devotional was playing. Otherwise, I would probably never have heard it. I don't think I would have sought it out purposefully. But I am glad that I happened to come across it.

If I don't turn on the radio I listen to Google Play podcasts over my truck's Auxiliary sound system. Here are the podcasts that I have bookmarked and rotate between:

NPR-Wait Wait Don't Tell Me
Mormon Discussion Podcast
Infants on Thrones
Mormon Stories
LDS Perspectives Podcast
Radio Lab

So it's a bit of this and a bit of that.

People who listen to Church devotionals tend to be those who are wrapping themselves up in the Mormon comfort-blanket when out and about in the secular world.

Generally speaking, I think I would agree with you.

It's a very conscious choice that ought to be explained.

OK. And I'm sure that you have a point to be made in regards to this thread...how?

Regarding the above, it was seeking a point of clarification. I suppose I could see one stubbling on to the talk and deciding to listen to it. I've listened to more than I should admit on the radio that I wouldn't have gone seeking. Even an occasional Alex Jone rant makes it's way into my media diet as junkfood when I stumble across it late at night and channel surf. Fair enough.

It would be interesting to see MG attempt to convey the critical arguments in a way that the critic who owns them would generally agree.

Not quite sure how this would work/look. You might have to help me out here. I have repeatedly said that I understand and/or can have empathy with the critics for their views/decisions, etc.

There was a thread that brought this up years and years ago. It would probably be better than my attempt:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19458

This entire exchange led me back to this other old thread that seems somehow relevent:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18743

[_mentalgymnast]

Lemmie, now that the thread has revived a bit...don't take it personally...but I'm not going to respond to your posts. It goes nowhere and all you do is cut and paste what others have said, fault me for not responding in the way you think I should have, etc. I really don't find this sort of thing at all interesting or worth the response. If I do see something that is original and/or merits my time...I will respond.

Nit picky editorial assistants are probably a dime a dozen.

As you can see...or not, I respond the best I can to others and am not afraid to take on opposing thoughts/question...but you're a different beast. I simply don't find your line of conversation worth engaging.

Please let the conversation continue without another derail. Thanks in advance. (Hmmm...I think I'm experiencing Déjà vu.)

I think I asked the same of you earlier in the thread, but to no avail. Please stop your nonsense and let the rest of us have a conversation. If someone thinks I haven't engaged them thoroughly and/or properly...let THEM bring it up.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

It's funny how many can take such a normal experience and think something divine must be a part of it.

More like...something Divine could be part of it. One has to look at the big picture and/or the total package. And if you have, which you have said repeatedly, then we have to respect each other's conclusions/outcomes at that point.

I respect yours.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

honor: It would be interesting to see MG attempt to convey the critical arguments in a way that the critic who owns them would generally agree.

MG: Not quite sure how this would work/look. You might have to help me out here. I have repeatedly said that I understand and/or can have empathy with the critics for their views/decisions, etc.

There was a thread that brought this up years and years ago. It would probably be better than my attempt:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19458

This entire exchange led me back to this other old thread that seems somehow relevent:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18743

I may go back and look at these later.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

I would hope to think that this is true in your case also. I have no respect for the strawman. I've seen enough of them around here.

Yet you failed to recognize the article created a straw-man argument to knock it down and listeners could then cheer.

Not quite sure how this would work/look. You might have to help me out here. I have repeatedly said that I understand and/or can have empathy with the critics for their views/decisions, etc.

If you don't know how it would work or look you don't really understand the arguments from the critic side. One of the things I notice some people do here and other sites is make a sock puppet and pretend to be someone from the other side. Some are good and make you believe them, while others don't have a good understanding of how the other side thinks and views the subject and cannot play the part well.

[_Themis]

It's funny how many can take such a normal experience and think something divine must be a part of it.

More like...something Divine could be part of it. One has to look at the big picture and/or the total package. And if you have, which you have said repeatedly, then we have to respect each other's conclusions/outcomes at that point.

I respect yours.

Regards,
MG

I have asked you to articulate how it would work such that one can reasonably think one is getting revelation from a divine being and you have never been able to. It's one thing not to be able to articulate the other side well, but when you cannot even articulate your own side.

[_Sanctorian]

More like...something Divine could be part of it. One has to look at the big picture and/or the total package. And if you have, which you have said repeatedly, then we have to respect each other's conclusions/outcomes at that point.

I respect yours.

Regards,
MG

in my opinion, your idea of big picture/total package isn't big enough. To truly look at the big picture, you have to understand your insignificance in it all. To suggest God is interested in little ole' you might make you feel good about yourself, but doing so is the exact opposite of seeing the big picture. The big picture/grand scheme of things is clearly Godless/meaningless. When we try to assign meaning to what 'WE' perceive in our own lives, 'WE' lose sight of the big picture.

[_mentalgymnast]

I have asked you to articulate how it would work such that one can reasonably think one is getting revelation from a divine being and you have never been able to.

You're right. I can't explain it...except to say that I understand what I understand and know what I know...and that leads to my belief. My experience, at least for me, is that this understanding/knowledge really does come line upon line and precept upon precept...here a little and there a little. With a few...count them on one hand...bedrock 'spiritual anchor' experiences I've had along the way.

But I'm not going to share them here.

You're on your own as to whether or not you get revelation from a Divine Being in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

No one can hand that to you.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

More like...something Divine could be part of it. One has to look at the big picture and/or the total package. And if you have, which you have said repeatedly, then we have to respect each other's conclusions/outcomes at that point.

I respect yours.

in my opinion, your idea of big picture/total package isn't big enough.

Your judgment, not mine.

To truly look at the big picture, you have to understand your insignificance in it all.

Oh, do I.

To suggest God is interested in little ole' you might make you feel good about yourself...

It's not really a matter of how it makes me feel...it's a matter of whether or not God IS interested in little ol' me. I personally think He is. That doesn't really have a whole lot of impact on how I feel about myself though. Although, I must say, knowing/believing I am a Child of God is kind of cool.

How I ACT/LIVE is where/how I either do or don't feel good about myself.

...but doing so is the exact opposite of seeing the big picture.

How so?

The big picture/grand scheme of things is clearly Godless/meaningless.

You, of course, are free to think/believe that. I happen to disagree with you.

When we try to assign meaning to what 'WE' perceive in our own lives, 'WE' lose sight of the big picture.

It's not strictly a matter of whether we assign meaning...it's whether or not there IS meaning. I happen to think there is.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

It would be interesting to see MG attempt to convey the critical arguments in a way that the critic who owns them would generally agree.

Not quite sure how this would work/look. You might have to help me out here. I have repeatedly said that I understand and/or can have empathy with the critics for their views/decisions, etc.

There was a thread that brought this up years and years ago. It would probably be better than my attempt:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19458

This entire exchange led me back to this other old thread that seems somehow relevent:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18743

Thanks, honorentheos, for the links, some very interesting threads!

(Too bad that after asking for help and getting your links, the best mentalgymnast could come up with was to say he may go back and read those later. Weak. He could have learned something, but I suspect learning something was never his intent.)

My favorite was DrW:

About all I could do (with a straight face) would be to close my eyes, think of the most emotional "spiritual" experience I ever had, blank out my knowledge of from whence it came, and pretend that I had been given special witness. I would then bear a pretend testimony to the effect that I could therefore not deny the faith, no matter how much contrary evidence was presented.

I have no doubt that my pretend testimony would be no different that many others given by TBMs. I could even summon up a few tears.

Perfect!