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

[_I have a question]

That is a stupid question to ask. It is a very stupid question to ask. It is an insanely stupid question to ask.

If he believes that what he has posted is NOT intellectually dishonest, and you think that it IS, the burden is on you to shown him WHY IT IS, not on him to show you WHY IT IS NOT. If you think that what he has posted is intellectually dishonest, you first explain to him why you think it is, and then he will be able to counter it by explaining to you why it isn't. That is the way it works, not the other way.

Zerinus,
Let me clarify by asking...
If somebody makes a claim e.g "You are intellectually dishonest".
To which 'You' responds with "I'm not intellectually dishonest".
With whom does the burden of proof lie?

And...
If somebody makes a claim e.g. "The Book of Mormon is God-Given".
To which somebody else responds with "It's not God-Given".
With whom does the burden of proof lie?

[_mentalgymnast]

...so there's a deep sense of frustration...
- Doc

Not at all.

Hey Doc, I have had something settle in my mind on this thread. And that is, most of the psycho-babbling I read around here is simply that.

Including your most recent little piece of hogwash.

Learning to be a little bit more of a Stoic as I read that 'hogwash' will do wonders from here out. I have finally (see my sig line) realized that you and others have your reasons for what you might say or do. I will cut you some slack...but may point out the fact now and then...that you are "making stuff up".

Have a nice day,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Let me clarify by asking...
If somebody makes a claim e.g "You are intellectually dishonest".
To which 'You' responds with "I'm not intellectually dishonest".
With whom does the burden of proof lie?

Oh my, you're going to continue this?

by the way, you failed to answer my question up thread. What did you mean when you posted this:

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

IHAQ: Staggering.

There was no contradiction here in what I said. Why did it deserve your response?

Regards,
MG

[_schreech]

[_Tator]

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

So why don't you take your own advice?

sorry I fed the troll

[_Lemmie]

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

So why don't you take your own advice?

sorry I fed the troll

that's okay, Tator, your question was worth it!

[_Themis]

Why is it you can go page after page about trivial things...

My personal integrity and honor is more important than ANYTHING I discuss on this board. My intellectual honesty is much more important than making some point and/or 'winning' in a conversation.

Regards,
MG

LOL Really? I don't care about what people may say. Can't control it. I guess this your excuse to avoid substance. Making good points does more to show integrity and intellectually honesty then arguing about whether you are or not. I know some good believing member's like Nevo who would never spend a minute arguing about this crap, and instead stick to the real issues he is usually very well versed in.

[_Jersey Girl]

LOL Really? I don't care about what people may say. Can't control it. I guess this your excuse to avoid substance. Making good points does more to show integrity and intellectually honesty then arguing about whether you are or not. I know some good believing member's like Nevo who would never spend a minute arguing about this crap, and instead stick to the real issues he is usually very well versed in.

Correct. I made the same observation earlier in this very thread.

Don Bradley, David Bokovoy, Nevo, for example, can participate in topical discussion and defend without becoming defensive and contribute to stimulating and thought provoking discussion, and never once do they need to reduce themselves to playing games. Kishkumen, in certain situations, will choose to defend in his own way with confidence when he sees a reason to do so.

viewtopic.php?p=1048827#p1048827p1048827

Not one out of the three men that I mentioned would spend time creating a spectacle as we are witnessing on this thread. They devote themselves to topic, content, and exchange of ideas.

Notice that I said, exchange.

MG can't exchange one direct response to one question posed.

[_honorentheos]

I occurs to me that if I were interested in proving a claim that a person was intellectually dishonest a good way to do so would be to present a case where they appear to be doing just that, ask that they explain themselves, and then continue to encourage them to address the issue while they exhibit an unwillingness to actually explain their position.

MG, are you sure you aren't being manipulated into tying your own noose?

I mentioned earlier that you would be much better served, as would the discussion overall, if you simply explained how you reconcile the Ostler theories with your previous statements. For example, there is an inherent conflict between believing -

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 rather than taking an automatic default position of "It can't be the work of God, because there isn't a God". If you don't believe in God in the first place you HAVE to come up with other alternatives besides the "gift and power of God".

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. I have seen some valiant efforts. But nothing that would pull me away from looking at the possibility that God was behind it. And it is at this point that the believers and non-believers go their own separate ways.

...putting everything inside of a nutshell and telling it like it is. It's so simple, really. Either the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be or it is not.

while then arguing that Ostler's attempts to explain evidence in the Book of Mormon show Joseph Smith influenced what became the Book of Mormon, and that there is more to it than a simple belief in the basic narrative behind the Book of Mormon coming about through the story taught in the old missionary discussions.

Rather than sticking your head in and balancing on the stool, how about just explaining your beliefs in this regard? It's not a big deal to suggest you oversimplified earlier. Sure, some people will give you hard time but that's life. Some people are like that.

[_mentalgymnast]

Why is it you can go page after page about trivial things...

My personal integrity and honor is more important than ANYTHING I discuss on this board. My intellectual honesty is much more important than making some point and/or 'winning' in a conversation.

LOL Really?

Yes.

I don't care about what people may say.

Neither do I, generally speaking...unless they are outright lying as Lemmie did in this thread. Gotta admit, that's a bit bothersome. You would think that she would be embarrassed and have a sense of shame. But no.

Can't control it.

Ain't that the truth.

I guess this your excuse to avoid substance.

YMMV, I realize that. To be honest, I think we've has some pretty decent conversations here and there, you and I. Although you may be disappointed you can't squeeze/fit me into the box that you're in.

Making good points does more to show integrity and intellectually honesty then arguing about whether you are or not.

Not if you're doing at the expense of someone else's integrity and you're lying and/or making stuff up in order to to it.

I know some good believing member's like Nevo who would never spend a minute arguing about this crap...

Yay.

...and instead stick to the real issues he is usually very well versed in.

I know he is well versed. I enjoy reading his stuff. It's not frequent enough though.

Regards,
MG