Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

12 pages and MG 2.0 still hasn’t posted any specific detail from the video he made the thread about, that he finds is a compelling point in responding to his question “Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired.” What has Hansen said that he finds worthy? We are still none the wiser.

[MG 2.0]

12 pages and MG 2.0 still hasn’t posted any specific detail from the video he made the thread about, that he finds is a compelling point in responding to his question “Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired.” What has Hansen said that he finds worthy? We are still none the wiser.

Because you have not watched the debate. Or at least I’d be willing to bet you didn’t watch the whole thing. As I’ve said, there were very few new, if any, talking points or defensive positions taken in regards to evidences for the Book of Mormon that you and most people here are not already aware of. At least I would hope that’s the case. Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator (how did he do it?!), more evidences coming to light, etc.

Someone on this thread made light of the geographical research and tracking that’s been going on for a number of years now using LiDAR technology. Powerful stuff.

Earlier Gadianton asked me to give an example of bad apologetics in regards to the Book of Mormon. I gave him an A.I. list that I then said I supported. That wasn’t good enough for him. NOTHING is ever good enough for the critic who comes from a position of not believing in God. The answer as to the WHY(?) this is the case is rather self evident.

I would, however, add an additional example of bad apologetics. That is, ANY apologetic work having to do with Book of Mormon in which human beings attempt to uncover that which God in His infinite wisdom deigns to keep more or less covered and hidden is more or less a fruitless enterprise in the sense of trying to come up with anything conclusive that proves the Book of Mormon. Why? Well, it comes down to a matter of belief in a God that has created a world in which we are to live by FAITH rather than absolute knowledge in order to see ‘whom we shall serve’, God or mammon (the things of this world). That’s bad apologetics. Thinking that you’re going to prove anything at 100% and ‘out determine’ and outfox God in His infinite wisdom and divine purposes.

Because where then is the need for faith?

The links I’ve provided for Jacob Hansen’s work are by no means exhaustive because of the simple fact that he and no other person can offer exhaustive physical evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and its message concerning Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of a fallen world. A world that is ever increasingly falling into darkness and evil.

Ultimately the Book of Mormon believers believe/know the Book of Mormon is true because of small and simple witnesses (for some, powerful witnesses) from God that the book is divinely inspired.

Ya gotta do your own homework, IHAQ. You keep wanting believers to prove stuff to you.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

You keep wanting believers to prove stuff to you.

Me, I don't follow believers in the street asking them to prove stuff. That would be rude.

If on the other hand they affirm religious propositions as being true in the context of a public discussion into which they have freely entered, why yes, then I do expect them to give me solid reasons for their assertions. If they are unable and unwilling to do so, I have the right to attend to something more interesting and potentially fruitful.

And one thing they certainly need to explain is what this word 'god' that they keep using actually refers to. Where is this thing, what is it, and how can we answer questions about it on a rational and evidence-based way? Why and when did they start using it? (In early every case, the answer will be something like "my parents talked about it a lot when I was a kid, and they seemed to think it was important". Hmmm...)

[I Have Questions]

12 pages and MG 2.0 still hasn’t posted any specific detail from the video he made the thread about, that he finds is a compelling point in responding to his question “Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired.” What has Hansen said that he finds worthy? We are still none the wiser.

Because you have not watched the debate. Or at least I’d be willing to bet you didn’t watch the whole thing. As I’ve said, there were very few new, if any, talking points or defensive positions taken in regards to evidences for the Book of Mormon that you and most people here are not already aware of. At least I would hope that’s the case. Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator (how did he do it?!), more evidences coming to light, etc.

Someone on this thread made light of the geographical research and tracking that’s been going on for a number of years now using LiDAR technology. Powerful stuff.

Earlier Gadianton asked me to give an example of bad apologetics in regards to the Book of Mormon. I gave him an A.I. list that I then said I supported. That wasn’t good enough for him. NOTHING is ever good enough for the critic who comes from a position of not believing in God. The answer as to the WHY(?) this is the case is rather self evident.

I would, however, add an additional example of bad apologetics. That is, ANY apologetic work having to do with Book of Mormon in which human beings attempt to uncover that which God in His infinite wisdom deigns to keep more or less covered and hidden is more or less a fruitless enterprise in the sense of trying to come up with anything conclusive that proves the Book of Mormon. Why? Well, it comes down to a matter of belief in a God that has created a world in which we are to live by FAITH rather than absolute knowledge in order to see ‘whom we shall serve’, God or mammon (the things of this world). That’s bad apologetics. Thinking that you’re going to prove anything at 100% and ‘out determine’ and outfox God in His infinite wisdom and divine purposes.

Because where then is the need for faith?

The links I’ve provided for Jacob Hansen’s work are by no means exhaustive because of the simple fact that he and no other person can offer exhaustive physical evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and its message concerning Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of a fallen world. A world that is ever increasingly falling into darkness and evil.

Ultimately the Book of Mormon believers believe/know the Book of Mormon is true because of small and simple witnesses (for some, powerful witnesses) from God that the book is divinely inspired.

Ya gotta do your own homework, IHAQ. You keep wanting believers to prove stuff to you.

Regards,
MG

A wall of words, but still nothing about what he, specifically, finds compelling within the Hansen video. It’s as if he hasn’t watched it, or maybe hasn’t understood it.

Why should anyone put forward specific points from the video in the OP when the person who started the thread has spent 13 pages of his own thread conspicuously avoiding doing so himself?

[Marcus]

...As I’ve said, there were very few new, if any, talking points or defensive positions taken in regards to evidences for the Book of Mormon that you and most people here are not already aware of. At least I would hope that’s the case. Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator (how did he do it?!), more evidences coming to light, etc...

MG, in the podcast you linked to in the OP, did you watch Jacob Hansen discuss "Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator...[and] more evidences coming to light" ???

What was his opinion about the Nahom evidence? What did he say in the video about the Mormon chiasmus evidence? How did Trent respond to his points? Your opinions on his comments would add so much to your OP. Please, share.

[MG 2.0]

You keep wanting believers to prove stuff to you.

Me, I don't follow believers in the street asking them to prove stuff. That would be rude.

If on the other hand they affirm religious propositions as being true in the context of a public discussion into which they have freely entered, why yes, then I do expect them to give me solid reasons for their assertions. If they are unable and unwilling to do so, I have the right to attend to something more interesting and potentially fruitful.

And one thing they certainly need to explain is what this word 'god' that they keep using actually refers to. Where is this thing, what is it, and how can we answer questions about it on a rational and evidence-based way? Why and when did they start using it? (In early every case, the answer will be something like "my parents talked about it a lot when I was a kid, and they seemed to think it was important". Hmmm...)

In a rational and evidence based way please explain how the world as we experience it came into being. Step by step. Unless you can do so am I still obligated to believe that a creator was not involved in the processes that determined the existence of this place we call home?

On your word?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

...As I’ve said, there were very few new, if any, talking points or defensive positions taken in regards to evidences for the Book of Mormon that you and most people here are not already aware of. At least I would hope that’s the case. Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator (how did he do it?!), more evidences coming to light, etc...

MG, in the podcast you linked to in the OP, did you watch Jacob Hansen discuss "Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator...[and] more evidences coming to light" ???

What was his opinion about the Nahom evidence? What did he say in the video about the Mormon chiasmus evidence? How did Trent respond to his points? Your opinions on his comments would add so much to your OP. Please, share.

I watched the video days ago. In my recollection during the debate these topics, and I’m sure others, were discussed.

I don’t think that he or any serious apologist considers Book of Mormon evidences bullet proof from criticism.

As it is, I believe that some of the evidences that have come to light in regards to the Book of Mormon being of divine origins are interesting. And even in some respects convincing to the fact that Joseph couldn’t have succeeded on this project on his own.

Even more convincing than Jacob’s apologetics is the research and time that Tad Callister, a General Authority in the LDS church has produced in reference to the Book of Mormon.

https://youtu.be/n7GAjpp-5Io?si=x2yujs-_mu8Ijrhk

I haven’t seen any comment in regards to whether or not anyone watched this video (posted a page or two ago) and their thoughts in regards to his words.

A transcript can be found here:

https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/tad-r-ca ... god-given/

As far as my feelings in regards to his talk I am in agreement with the points he fleshes out.

As I said in my recent post to IHAQ, I understand how his talk along with anything I said to IHAQ are non starters to those that disbelieve in God.

Or as IHAQ would say, [you guys are just speaking a] “wall of words”.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

MG, in the podcast you linked to in the OP, did you watch Jacob Hansen discuss "Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator...[and] more evidences coming to light" ???

What was his opinion about the Nahom evidence? What did he say in the video about the Mormon chiasmus evidence? How did Trent respond to his points? Your opinions on his comments would add so much to your OP. Please, share.

I watched the video days ago. In my recollection during the debate these topics, and I’m sure others, were discussed.

I don’t think that he or any serious apologist considers Book of Mormon evidences bullet proof from criticism.

As it is, I believe that some of the evidences that have come to light in regards to the Book of Mormon being of divine origins are interesting. And even in some respects convincing to the fact that Joseph couldn’t have succeeded on this project on his own.

Even more convincing than Jacob’s apologetics is the research and time that Tad Callister, a General Authority in the LDS church has produced in reference to the Book of Mormon.

https://youtu.be/n7GAjpp-5Io?si=x2yujs-_mu8Ijrhk

I haven’t seen any comment in regards to whether or not anyone watched this video (posted a page or two ago) and their thoughts in regards to his words.

A transcript can be found here:

https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/tad-r-ca ... god-given/

As far as my feelings in regards to his talk I am in agreement with the points he fleshes out.

As I said in my recent post to IHAQ, I understand how his talk along with anything I said to IHAQ are non starters to those that disbelieve in God.

Or as IHAQ would say, [you guys are just speaking a] “wall of words”.

Regards,
MG

Still nothing.

[Marcus]

MG, in the podcast you linked to in the OP, did you watch Jacob Hansen discuss "Nahom, Chiasmus, Joseph the translator...[and] more evidences coming to light" ???

What was his opinion about the Nahom evidence? What did he say in the video about the Mormon chiasmus evidence? How did Trent respond to his points? Your opinions on his comments would add so much to your OP. Please, share.

I watched the video days ago. In my recollection during the debate these topics, and I’m sure others, were discussed...

You posted those topics today, implying they were discussed in the podcast. Why did you list them today if you don't remember if they are in the podcast from your OP? And are you sure they were talked about? You posted the transcript link, you could refresh your memory that way. After you do, could you confirm those topics were in the podcast you want others to watch?

You also added this today, in the discussion of your OP:

Someone on this thread made light of the geographical research and tracking that’s been going on for a number of years now using LiDAR technology. Powerful stuff.

Was lidar discussed in the podcast from your OP?

[MG 2.0]

You also added this today, in the discussion of your OP:


Was lidar discussed in the podcast from your OP?

Yes.

As I mentioned towards the front end of this thread, we typically reach a point in which we either continue round and round in circles or one or both parties accuse the other of stonewalling. It is at that (this) point that I lose interest. It just becomes a “prove it” or “you’re not answering my questions”.

As I said earlier, my mission has been accomplished on this thread. Unless there is something else brought to the forefront that I find of interest I’ll leave it others to continue.

Also, I have to hand it to you IHAQ, instead of a “wall of words” you do have a way of saying very little and also using few words to do so. Marcus, you typically do the same. I just don’t find this interesting.

But it’s easy peasy, right? Just throwing mud.

Never having to commit yourself to ever actually taking a position other than attacking the other and asking for proof.

Empty vessels. I’ve had something to offer others. You’ve offered nothing.

Regards,
MG