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

[_honorentheos]

For MG -

You do still realize that you are telling people to stop being logical so they can believe the narrative mythology propagated by a known adulterer who, if you knew him in real life, would be perhaps the worst person morally with whom you associate? I get there is a lot of distance here but come on. The evidence is overwhelming, the character of Joseph Smith beyond defense, just go be happy with your family and the fact he was killed before he could bring the entire ship down with him.

Another voice telling people, "Go back to sleep..."

[_SteelHead]

Common denominator? The natural man needs be cast off and considered a thing of naught. And THAT is a hard thing to do. To be meek and lowly of heart is the major stumbling block for the intelligentsia.

It is difficult for the rich man to see/obtain the Kingdom of God. But not impossible.

It is difficult for the man who trusts exclusively in the intellect/flesh to see/obtain the Kingdom of God. But not impossible.

Regards,
MG

The ultimate expression of cognitive bias and special pleading.

If god can not provide evidence of himself, why should we believe in him?

[_zerinus]

On that we agree but you seem to have a hard time with documented observations that contradict your beliefs. See previous discussion about evidence.

More false statements and unwarranted assumptions. You have lost the argument and you know it, and you are now trying to pretend that you haven’t by kicking up a lot of dust and smoke in the air.

[_honorentheos]

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.

Now that I have some time to come back to this, let's explore more. What do you say, z?

Here are three items that are not related to Mormonism. What do you believe is the truth value of each postulate that follows the source and how did you arrive at this belief regarding the postulate's truth value?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39673142
Postulate: American ground forces conducted a raid in Syria within the last couple of days that resulted in the death of one or more members of the group known as the Islamic State.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39665509
Postulate: The Dow closed lower today than the at any point in 2016.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/2012/101 ... w-we-begin
Postulate: The book, Moby Dick, was written by a person named Ishmael.

[_honorentheos]

On that we agree but you seem to have a hard time with documented observations that contradict your beliefs. See previous discussion about evidence.

More false statements and unwarranted assumptions. You have lost the argument and you know it, and you are now trying to pretend that you haven’t by kicking up a lot of dust and smoke in the air.

Knocking over the board and claiming victory? We're not done yet and the layout is documented. Let's keep playing.

[_zerinus]

MG -

The trouble for both you and zerinus is you've shared a definition of truth which relies on correspondence with the observable world while relying on so-called evidence that is inscrutable to claim your beliefs are justified. It lacks consistency at very fundamental levels.

When D&C 93:14 equates truth to knowledge of what is, was, and is to come it excludes secret knowledge. Things hoped for but unseen are in an entirely different category from those things one can make postulates about claiming they are true and this be justified in a meaningful way.

That means it's not just a question about subjective experiences v. objective evidence. It's about cluttered thinking that supports the claims being used to prop up the Book of Mormon.

You are talking a lot of incoherent rubbish which makes no sense to anybody including yourself​; just kicking up more dust and smoke in the air. That is not a sign of somebody who wants to know the truth.

[_mentalgymnast]

...MG probably [doesn't] know why using D&C 93 kinda blew up in the face of their testimony bearing but that's ok.

As the discussion continued and this scripture was brought up again I didn't see anything that would cause a heartache over using this definition as the 'default' to define truth.

Whatever is, is. Whatever was, was. Whatever will be, will be. And how they all meet...who knows, really? Quantum physics/space time and all that stuff.

I simply hope to be an observer and survive the veil of death. And I hope I am not alone in making whatever observations there are to be made. That wouldn't be a whole lot of fun.

But, whatever is, whatever was, and whatever will be...will endure...independent/autonomous of little ol' me.

And if someone on this planet has SOME 'hidden' knowledge and/or inkling in regards what has been, what is, and what's to come, all the better.

For one thing, this conversation and all of its rhetorical flourishes would simply be an exertion in/of pointlessness. Which in my view, it is anyway.

There are far more obvious things they seem oblivious to that matter more.

Incontestably, of course.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

MG -

The trouble for both you and zerinus is you've shared a definition of truth which relies on correspondence with the observable world while relying on so-called evidence that is inscrutable to claim your beliefs are justified. It lacks consistency at very fundamental levels.

When D&C 93:14 equates truth to knowledge of what is, was, and is to come it excludes secret knowledge. Things hoped for but unseen are in an entirely different category from those things one can make postulates about claiming they are true and this be justified in a meaningful way.

That means it's not just a question about subjective experiences v. objective evidence. It's about cluttered thinking that supports the claims being used to prop up the Book of Mormon.

You are talking a lot of incoherent rubbish which makes no sense to anybody including yourself​; just kicking up more dust and smoke in the air. That is not a sign of somebody who wants to know the truth.

Here's an easy button version.

You said, based on scripture, that truth is knowing about things. But when it comes to defending the Book of Mormon being true history, you don't rely on knowing about history but on a mental state you believe is a special communication from God.

You aren't being consistent.

ETA: For MG, your post above is answered by this as well.

[_sock puppet]

MG -

The trouble for both you and zerinus is you've shared a definition of truth which relies on correspondence with the observable world while relying on so-called evidence that is inscrutable to claim your beliefs are justified. It lacks consistency at very fundamental levels.

When D&C 93:14 equates truth to knowledge of what is, was, and is to come it excludes secret knowledge. Things hoped for but unseen are in an entirely different category from those things one can make postulates about claiming they are true and this be justified in a meaningful way.

That means it's not just a question about subjective experiences v. objective evidence. It's about cluttered thinking that supports the claims being used to prop up the Book of Mormon.

You are talking a lot of incoherent rubbish which makes no sense to anybody including yourself​; just kicking up more dust and smoke in the air. That is not a sign of somebody who wants to know the truth.

True dat. Honorentheos uses mighty big words. Strings 'em together into complex thoughts. Makes your brain hurt, don't it?

[_mentalgymnast]

Another voice telling people, "Go back to sleep..."

My gosh, you like this crap? If so, why? Not to derail...but this stuff just sounds evil/destructive/malevolent, to me anyway. And that's from a person who likes MUSE.

New World Order? What are they talking about?

Regards,