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

[_Meadowchik]

The challenge of the Book of Mormon is that anyone using as much logic and argument to defend it, applying that back to evaluate the Book of Mormon, will not accept it. All that needs to change is that they momentarily forget their bias.

[_honorentheos]

Odd.

You agreed that knowledge is having true, justified belief.

Agreed.

You now admit you aren’t able to justify your belief, merely assert it is true. Yet you claim to still have knowledge.

I can justify it for myself. It doesn't mean that I can prove it to you.

It sounds like you are now obligated to provide a definition of knowledge with which you agree and we can work with.

Wrong. See above.

Well, let's follow you down this rabbit hole for a while then.

You now argue for a form of internal coherence, one where justification is based souly on if it coheres with all of your other beliefs and is obtained in a way that is also coherent with how you obtain beliefs otherwise. We'll need to set aside D&C 93 to do so since this no longer includes things as they are, were, and are to come but rather your beliefs about those things only and if those beliefs can be coherently justified. But ok.

So, let's find another belief and see how coherent your justification process is, shall we?

Since we're talking about scripture claimed to be from God through the prophet Joseph Smith, would you say you have justified true belief that the Book of Abraham is true in the same way that you have justified belief that the Book of Mormon is true?

[_zerinus]

I'm asking you to explain the term you yourself used in your post. If you're unable to do so, just say it.

He used it first. I simply contradicted what he said. So that is a question that you should legitimately ask him.

[_zerinus]

How is it that you demand demonstrable evidence for honorentheos claims, but when you are pressed for evidence of your claims you declare it a waste if time?

Talking to you is a waste of time.

[_honorentheos]

Observer-dependent truths are relative truths. You didn't like those, remember?

They are not relative. They are selective. They are available to everyone who is willing to fulfil the conditions. The promise of the Book of Mormon is not "relative". It is dependent on whether we fulfil the conditions. Some do, and some don't.

That is silly.

Selective, relative...it amounts to observer-dependence. You didn't do anything more than offer up a synonym of sorts to try and make is sound like you are talking about something different.

And we're getting really far away from things as they are, were, or are to come. Abandoning D&C 93 is a smart move, for sure.

[_Starbuck]

To come back full circle, zerinus can't justify his belief such that it achieves the most basic definition of knowledge. Since he can't demonstrate justified true belief that the Book of Mormon is historical by his own definition. Without knowledge he can't demonstrate it even achieves the definition of truth he provided from LDS scripture.

Saying the Book of Mormon is true is a false statement. This being arrived at by using the criteria zerinus provided.

Thanks zerinus.

Wrong! Your argument amounts to saying that I can't prove the the Book of Mormon is true, therefore it isn't! Well, I never claimed to be able to prove that the Book of Mormon is true. I can only bear witness that I know it is true. The proof can only come direct from God.

It's not that. It's that you won't accept physical evidence that contradicts your bias. You claimed that it was a true history, but will not show evidence that such a statement is true.

My sister, when shown evidence that is available, made the statement that "time will tell." As more time goes on, it is becoming more and more clearer that the Book of Mormon is 19th century Bible fan fiction. That is what the evidence shows. And according to you, I am not obliged to show you the evidence as it is a waste of time.

[_zerinus]

Well, let's follow you down this rabbit hole for a while then.

You now argue for a form of internal coherence, one where justification is based souly on if it coheres with all of your other beliefs and is obtained in a way that is also coherent with how you obtain beliefs otherwise. We'll need to set aside D&C 93 to do so since this no longer includes things as they are, were, and are to come but rather your beliefs about those things only and if those beliefs can be coherently justified. But ok.

So, let's find another belief and see how coherent your justification process is, shall we?

You are being unintelligible and not making a lot of sense to me.

Since we're talking about scripture claimed to be from God through the prophet Joseph Smith, would you say you have justified true belief that the Book of Abraham is true in the same way that you have justified belief that the Book of Mormon is true?

Yes.

[_Tator]

zerinus, I am really curious. I am wondering if you ever had a coitus interruptus event with an alien being or a heavenly angel? I am wondering how wide spread and how often these angel/alien events happen.

I am having Tobin deja vu events from reading your posts.

[_zerinus]

That is silly.

Selective, relative...it amounts to observer-dependence. You didn't do anything more than offer up a synonym of sorts to try and make is sound like you are talking about something different.

Nope! We make the selection. The promise is equally available to all. If I said, "If you go to such and such a place, you will see a crocodile;" and some people were interested enough to go and have a look, and some weren't; does that mean that the experience of those who saw the crocodile were "subjective;" and those who did not see the crocodile were justified in questioning of experience of those who did?

And we're getting really far away from things as they are, were, or are to come. Abandoning D&C 93 is a smart move, for sure.

I am not abandoning anything, maybe you are.

[_Starbuck]

zerinus, I am really curious. I am wondering if you ever had a coitus interruptus event with an alien being or a heavenly angel? I am wondering how wide spread and how often these angel/alien events happen.

I am having Tobin deja vu events from reading your posts.

Makes me wonder that if the HG witnessed to him that giant pink Quakers lived on the moon he would be all for it being truth. Without any evidence, it's just as absurd as believing that the Book of Mormon came from a rock.