Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Moksha]

The proof of divinity for both the Book of Mormon and the authority of the Prophet Russell M. Nelson resides in the height of the Temple Steeple. This has been revealed to us by the law firm of Kirton McConkie.

[Gadianton]

As I mentioned to Wang earlier in the thread, I don’t respond well, if at all, to what I can see as ‘traps’ that really don’t lead anywhere productive other than a ‘gotcha’.

That might say more about your beliefs than it does anyone else's. Why are you at such a risk for stepping into a trap? If I go post at MDDB or Sic et Non, how worried do you think I'm going to be about stepping into a trap? If they think they've got me on something, I'd be very curious what it is. By all means, set the trap. If I think it is a setup, then I will explain the purpose of the trap and why I won't be answering.

One option you have is introspection. Perhaps you don't answer the question because you have this feeling it's not going to go well, but you could write your answer down and then imagine yourself as the critic, and what would could you find wrong with the answer? Do you ever fact check yourself?

I'm glad PG provided an answer that resonated with you and that you can take as your position moving forward. But you're not going to pull one over and convince us that that's what you meant all along, when you said JWs don't have testimonies.

[Morley]

MG, that you're concerned and angry about getting 'trapped,' or caught out, in your multiple and conflicting narratives, is both quite sad and kind of hilarious.

As Gad says, one strategy would be to use a little introspection. I'd also suggest that, since yours is obviously a constructed reality, you could write out a timeline and a biographical sketch for your made-up crisis of faith. That way, you could always tell the same story with the same details.

[I Have Questions]

Oliver wrote this.

He had his opinions as did others, including Joseph.

Regards,
MG

And again you truncated my post, and completely changed the point. Here's how you excerpt, and keep the point:

Presented in the link above, as evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon:

[excerpt]
...Some historical details: book written by ancestors of Indians, translated into English, duration of plates’ burial in ground, Israelite ancestry of Indians....

It's a known and universally accepted fact that the above statements about "our western tribes of Indians" are blatantly and completely untrue.

What a source.

Your disingenuousness is noted. I'm assuming it's because you can't support your link, or discuss it, and most likely didn't even read it.

The only person setting traps for MG 2.0 is MG 2.0.

Some helpful advice going forward.
If you post a source to support your view of something, it’s best to first read that source to see if it supports your view of something. No professional educator that I’ve ever come across would cite a source that they either hadn’t read, or didn’t understand. Students would have whole papers failed for that kind of basic laziness.

[Gadianton]

I would add one more thing to IHAQs suggestion, and then I'm done with this subtopic.

The next time you're tempted to inform everyone that JWs don't have testimonies, or something like that, and you're about to form a grin on your face as once again, Mormonism is the most special of all because only Mormons pray to the father or have testimonies, or whatever it is, take five minutes to read about what JWs actually believe in. You keep saying that you're free to explore the world however you like, but you appear to know nothing about the world. Using A.I. to quickly gloss topics you don't intend to know anything about only affirms that you have no interest in what goes on out there.

That doesn't make you a bad or unfriendly person. My dad was one of the best people I know, but he was, unfortunately, the same way in that regard. He was interested in history or science superficially, but mainly as it somehow related to the Church. If he learned something new about science, he'd have the D&C open, and that thing was in the scriptures the entire time, and he'd laugh, and scientists with their big egos are only now figuring it out.
When Mormonism defines a person's entire reality, it's really, really hard to try to convince the world otherwise.

[MG 2.0]

I didn’t feel prompted to do so.

So you are dismissive of them for not bearing what you would classify as a sincere testimony, but you excuse yourself from doing the exact same thing by blaming God for not prompting you to do it. I think that’s called having a double standard.

Not at all. At the time I didn’t give it a second thought that they were not ‘witnessing’ to me. Later upon reflection I realized that neither one of us was proselytizing. We were simply seeing each other as interesting to talk to.

Later I thought it also interesting that they didn’t do anything to share their message besides asking me if I wanted a copy of their Watchtower magazine which I politely declined.

It was their kiosk. I didn’t feel it my place to apply any pressure on them. They knew who I was and if they were interested and asked me any questions I would have been happy to answer.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Now you're saying a "testimony" would have been any kind of "door approach" -- anything at all where they talk about religion. But they didn't talk about religion, you just talked the weather. Placing this back into the context of your other statements, you would be saying that you've had several encounters with JWs, at no time have they ever borne "testimony" like Mormon missionaries do, and so you've concluded that JWs don't talk about religion, they just talk about the weather? This is patently absurd, MG.

In the past as they came through the neighborhood we have sometimes talked about their beliefs. In this case at the beach, we didn’t. Pure and simple.

I find it interesting that this is so interesting to you folks.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This is too funny. I was quoting from a link that YOU inserted into a post on this thread, apropos of nothing:

So I read your link and responded, but you now call talking about your own link "a waste of time"!!!!!!!

Because, get this, you think "it looks like [the people quoted] might have been off target." In a link YOU posted in support of Book of Mormon historicity.

Seriously, mg, you have outdone yourself this time. It's hard to believe you're not just Poe-ing.

Priceless

Actually, you guys lost me on all this.

But if it provides comic relief on your end, fine.

Humor is the best medicine. Especially when applied at the expense of someone else.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Hi Morley,
I’m not seeing anything in your response that I’m finding anything other as ‘filler’. But thanks for your response, such as it is.

The only thing I see that is worth responding to is your last statement. And if I wasn’t clear let me say even more clearly that I agree with that statement. There, I bolded it. You’re making something out of nothing. Honestly, that’s what I see throughout your post.

Filler.

But you did respond. Partial credit for that.

Regards,
MG

Ha! And here it is. The patented MG self-righteous, contemptuous dismissal that's always eventually in evidence when you're cornered. Full credit for consistency.

I was being totally honest. There was no ‘there’ there.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As I mentioned to Wang earlier in the thread, I don’t respond well, if at all, to what I can see as ‘traps’ that really don’t lead anywhere productive other than a ‘gotcha’.

That might say more about your beliefs than it does anyone else's. Why are you at such a risk for stepping into a trap? If I go post at MDDB or Sic et Non, how worried do you think I'm going to be about stepping into a trap? If they think they've got me on something, I'd be very curious what it is. By all means, set the trap. If I think it is a setup, then I will explain the purpose of the trap and why I won't be answering.

One option you have is introspection. Perhaps you don't answer the question because you have this feeling it's not going to go well, but you could write your answer down and then imagine yourself as the critic, and what would could you find wrong with the answer? Do you ever fact check yourself?

I'm glad PG provided an answer that resonated with you and that you can take as your position moving forward. But you're not going to pull one over and convince us that that's what you meant all along, when you said JWs don't have testimonies.

In the instance earlier in the thread Wang set a sloppy and ill formed trap. I caught him on it and then told him it pissed me off that he would do that. I don’t see that kind of behavior conducive to a civil conversation.

Unfortunately, I find that critics often lay in wait to deceive by setting traps. Some of them intricately laid and others rather sloppily.

Either way, I find that reprehensible.

Regards,
MG