Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Morley]

All of the examples you had your A.I. list were either deities or gods that did not have the attributes of God in which Jesus taught his disciples to pray to. Somewhat amorphous.

I didn't suggest they did. You're changing your assertion--again. Now the religion has to view God the same way you do?

Every religion defines God a little differently. Wouldn't you expect them to?

Mormonism doesn't have the aspects of God that Jesus taught, either.

[MG 2.0]

*bump

You're impatiently bumping, two hours after you post?

Often my posts get lost in the shuffle. This one I didn’t want to lose. Brought it back.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

All of the examples you had your A.I. list were either deities or gods that did not have the attributes of God in which Jesus taught his disciples to pray to. Somewhat amorphous.

I didn't suggest they did. You're changing your assertion--again. Now the religion has to view God the same way you do?

Every religion defines God a little differently. Wouldn't you expect them to?

Mormonism doesn't have the aspects of God that Jesus taught, either.

I would expect the true religion to define God most closely to the way Jesus defined God. As our Father in Heaven. One in whose image both he (Jesus) and us were created. I would expect, yes, that other religions might define god differently.

I think it’s important to point out that Jesus wasn’t an ordinary itinerant preacher. As I’ve said, he was different than the rest and His name came through the ages and ended up in the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think that is significant.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

On page 40, I also brought up the Zoroastrians.

In Zoroastrianism, the concept of God is quite different from the monotheistic God in Abrahamic religions. Zoroastrians worship a supreme God called Ahura Mazda, who is often translated as "Wise Lord."

Unlike the Abrahamic God, Ahura Mazda is not traditionally seen as a personal or fatherly figure, but rather as an abstract, transcendent being who embodies qualities like wisdom, truth, and goodness. Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda created the world and everything in it, but not necessarily in his own image.

Instead, Zoroastrianism emphasizes the ongoing struggle between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (also known as Ahriman), the destructive spirit who represents evil and lies. Humans are seen as having free will to choose between the path of Ahura Mazda (goodness and truth) and the path of Angra Mainyu (evil and lies).

So while Zoroastrianism does believe in a supreme God, the concept of God as a father figure or as creating humans in his own image is not central to the faith.

PiAI

You guys are really stretching to make Jesus look like just ‘one of the guys’.

Regards,
MG

[ceeboo]

Hey MG

As I mentioned to you earlier in the thread, there are many reasons that it is difficult to engage LDS people about subjects like this. One of them relates to the significant amount of time It would take for each of us to understand what we mean when we use words that we use. I am not suggested that I am correct, I am simply suggesting what I am suggesting.

Having said that, a short reply from my view.

The Father gives (shares) what they have (not "had" because God isn't dead (sorry Nietzsche)) with His children who also have not earned it. This is no say, we are talking about a gift - freely given - available to all - having not earned.

For me, however, it doesn’t dovetail very well with the concept of eternal progression and becoming all that we can be.

My view: Putting this idea of eternal progression aside for the moment, "becoming all you can be" is to maximize creation and minimize the Creator - By definition, it focuses on you and distracts you from what the focus ought to be on. Put another way, it is navel gazing when your eyes ought to be looking up.

"Becoming all you can be" forces you into a position of earning (works) which, intentionally or not, lays proposed personal credit at your feet. In addition, it is a religious trap that can be found in many religions today. Traps (whether they are made for people or squirrels) do not free their targets, they trap them and they control them - They place them in bondage - and bondage can cause significant wounds to those in the trap.

Character isn’t a gift, it’s an attribute that is attained through individual effort.

If we were discussing self-help books on the best seller list, I could understand the statement. As it relates to this topic, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

I have a difficult time picturing an afterlife in which, figuratively speaking, we’re sitting around playing a harp and praising God.

Not only do I have a difficult time picturing such a silly suggestion, I don't believe such a silly suggestion.

Jesus marked the path and prepared the way through his life, mission, and sacrifice/atonement for all mankind. But we play a HUGE part in our own personal development. In the here and now and in the hereafter.

I don't even know how to respond to this, so I will be very brief: The relationship between God (Creator) and creation (man) is not a horizontal one, it is a vertical one.

[MG 2.0]

Hey MG

I have a difficult time picturing an afterlife in which, figuratively speaking, we’re sitting around playing a harp and praising God.

Not only do I have a difficult time picturing such a silly suggestion, I don't believe such a silly suggestion.

What are your views of the afterlife. I’m not saying that the LDS Church has all the answers but it seems to me that we might have a wider and grander view. That being said, what are your views?

If I was offensive in suggesting a figurative view of harps being played for eternity, I apologize. It’s just that this seems to be a common view that many non Christians seem to have about Christians and the afterlife.

By the way, I don’t see anything incompatible about a Father wanting His children to become more like him. We call that eternal progression.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Yes or no. Was Jesus the first one among the sages of the world to teach his followers to pray to their Father in Heaven?

No.

I answered this on page 39.

And I responded.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

On page 40, I also brought up the Zoroastrians.

..PiAI

You guys are really stretching to make Jesus look like just ‘one of the guys’...

You seem to have missed the point of Morley's post, which, as I am following this conversation, addressed your shifting claims about prayer. You say you responded on p 39, did you mean this?

...Just a bunch of hogwash to put it bluntly.

Jesus was unique among the other sages and holy men and miracle workers that may have called themselves son of god.

Truthfully? I think you know that....

Lol. Not a response. The A.I. you generate but don't read isn't a response either.

Back to Morley's point:

Yes or no. Was Jesus the first one among the sages of the world to teach his followers to pray to their Father in Heaven?

No.

I answered this on page 39.

You're being ridiculous.

This was your claim that I was responding to:

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑He made the claim of being related and/or associated with his “Father in Heaven”. And He taught that we should worship and obey this same Father God

Then you said that Jesus was the only one to have done this....

Even in your own cannon, the Book of Mormon prophets who preceded Jesus taught the God is the Father and that we should worship him. This stuff didn't begin with the earthly ministry of Jesus.

Other religions have God the Father, have prophets with a relationship with God, and have exhortations to pray to God. You maintaining otherwise makes you look like you've never read a book in your life...

Judaism, while seeing God as a father, does not associate their ancient tradition of personal prayer with Jesus.

On page 40, I also brought up the Zoroastrians.

Zoroastrianism is a couple of thousand years older than Christianity. It's always had a tradition of personal prayer to a creator god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastri ... %5D%5B3%5D

Jesus did not introduce the idea of personal prayer, as you have suggested. Personal prayer is ubiquitous across time and culture.

And though you have subsequently tried to qualify your assertion as prayer to God as father, Jesus did not introduce that concept, either. It's as old as concepts of God.

I might have missed it, but did you respond to this, as well as to the assertion that your claims about prayer are shifting?

[ceeboo]

Hey MG


Not only do I have a difficult time picturing such a silly suggestion, I don't believe such a silly suggestion.

What are your views of the afterlife.

Currently or after the Last Day, when Jesus returns? If after the Last day, eternity will be on this earth (redeemed earth) With God's children (redeemed sinners) dwelling with our Creator (The Redeemer). The idea of God dwelling with us is all over the Bible: In the Garden - In the Tabernacle - In the Temple - In the second Temple - In the flesh (Jesus) - after Jesus ascended (Holy Spirit) - Jesus Returns.

I’m not saying that the LDS Church has all the answers but it seems to me that we might have a wider and grander view.

MG, it's about Truth. Period.

LDS Church answers (if not true) are meaningless, at best. LDS having a wider and grander view (if not true) is meaningless, at best.

If Jeus didn't defeat death (resurrect from the dead) then the rest of the entire Bible, with all of the answers in it, and with all of the views found in it, is meaningless, at best. It is about Truth. Period,

Truth, no matter where it leads - no matter what it costs - no matter what might be lost - no matter what might be at stake - ought to be pursued.

If I was offensive in suggesting a figurative view of harps being played for eternity, I apologize.

No need to apologize, i was not offended at all.

It’s just that this seems to be a common view that many non Christians seem to have about Christians and the afterlife.

It's a picture painted intended to mock and ridicule. I said it was silly because you posted it in a post directed at me (I am not a non-Christian) and it is silly.

[Morley]

On page 40, I also brought up the Zoroastrians.

In Zoroastrianism, the concept of God is quite different from the monotheistic God in Abrahamic religions. Zoroastrians worship a supreme God called Ahura Mazda, who is often translated as "Wise Lord."

Unlike the Abrahamic God, Ahura Mazda is not traditionally seen as a personal or fatherly figure, but rather as an abstract, transcendent being who embodies qualities like wisdom, truth, and goodness. Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda created the world and everything in it, but not necessarily in his own image.

Instead, Zoroastrianism emphasizes the ongoing struggle between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (also known as Ahriman), the destructive spirit who represents evil and lies. Humans are seen as having free will to choose between the path of Ahura Mazda (goodness and truth) and the path of Angra Mainyu (evil and lies).

So while Zoroastrianism does believe in a supreme God, the concept of God as a father figure or as creating humans in his own image is not central to the faith.

PiAI

You guys are really stretching to make Jesus look like just ‘one of the guys’.

Regards,
MG

You’re disingenuously truncating my post and pretending the portion about Judaism didn’t exist.

You’re dishonestly implying that I have suggested that Jesus was ‘just one of the guys.’