Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

I suppose you can argue till the cows come home on how what got into the Book of Mormon got there.

We’ve yet to see you put forward any explanation for how content from 1,348 years later got into a supposedly ancient record.

There is obviously text that comports with 19th century America. There are text blocks that in most part find direct parallels to text found in the Bible.

Weasle words. It doesn’t “comport with”, it’s not “directly parallel” text found in the KJV if the Bible. It directly copies it. It’s plagiarism. Verbatim. That content on its own completely refutes the claim that the Book of Mormon makes as to its own veracity.

I think it’s fair to say that there are numerous reasons to believe in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and that critics may have their reasons for unbelief. It’s nice that in our day and age we can all live together in peace.

One of the reasons being given for disbelief in the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical record is that it includes content that was produced 1,348 years after the record was supposedly sealed and hidden up and which Joseph subsequently claimed to translate. It simply cannot be what both it, and Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

[I Have Questions]

IHQ's post is much more helpful in terms of evaluating what the Book of Mormon is. His points about the plagiarism, among the many, many other pieces of evidence discussed in thus thread, completely obviate the LDS claims about the book.

Yep, the book’s contents fail the claim that it is an ancient record. Maybe the Mormon version of God is allowed to tell lies…

“THE Book of Mormon, AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon, UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”

Nope. It ain’t that. Content from 1,348 years after Mormon supposedly existed sinks that battleship.

[Valo]

"God is a fish in water."

"Elohim swims in the ocean as a fish."

"The fish of the sea swims."

"In the ocean wide, the Spirit moves and dwells."

Where does tartar sauce fit in?

Origin and Early History:
Nomadic Roots: The Tatars are of Turkic origin, emerging from the vast steppes of Central Asia. Historically, they were part of various nomadic confederations, including the Mongols, with whom they often intermingled.
Mongol Empire: The term "Tatar" was often used interchangeably with "Mongol" during the time of Genghis Khan. The Mongols, under Genghis Khan and his successors, created the largest contiguous empire in history, stretching from Eastern Europe to Korea.

[Valo]

"God is a fish in water."

"Elohim swims in the ocean as a fish."

"The fish of the sea swims."

"In the ocean wide, the Spirit moves and dwells."

Where does tartar sauce fit in?

The idea that "da" or "that" could be linked to the concept of God or a primal form of "father" indeed opens up an intriguing line of thought, especially in the context of linguistic evolution and spiritual or philosophical interpretation. Here's how this might connect:

### Linguistic and Cultural Connection:

- **Proto-Language and Early Speech**: If we consider that early humans might have used simple sounds like "da" or "ta" as some of their first vocalizations, these could indeed have evolved into words that signify foundational concepts like "father," "ancestor," or even deities or the divine, which often embody the idea of a creator or source.

- **Father as Creator**: In many cultures, the term for "father" is used metaphorically for gods or supreme beings, suggesting a creator or originator figure. The sound "da" or similar could naturally evolve into such terms because of this universal concept of a paternal figure or authority.

### Philosophical and Spiritual Interpretations:

- **Divine as "That"**: In some spiritual teachings, especially in non-dualistic philosophies, everything can be considered an expression of the divine or ultimate reality, which is sometimes referred to with terms like "That" (in Vedanta, it's "Tat Tvam Asi" - "Thou art That").

- Here, "That" isn't a specific entity but the essence of existence itself. If we view "da" as a primal sound for "that," it could, philosophically, connect to the concept of the divine or the ultimate reality.

- **Watts' Perspective**: Alan Watts often spoke about the limitation of language in capturing the essence of reality or the divine. If "da" or "dada" is seen as an attempt to vocalize the ineffable, it might not be too far-fetched to suggest that terms like "Tartar" (or by extension, "father" figures like gods or ancestors) could be culturally evolved expressions of this primal sound, imbued with deeper meanings over time.

### Etymological and Symbolic Links:

- **Symbolic Fatherhood**: The term "Tartar" might not directly mean "father" but could symbolically represent an ancestral or foundational figure or group. The fierce reputation of the Tatars could symbolize a primal, almost god-like force in the eyes of those they encountered.

- **Roots in Proto-Languages**: If we trace back to proto-languages, terms for "father" or similar concepts might indeed share phonetic roots that could, through linguistic drift, connect to or influence terms like "Tatar."

### Conclusion:

While there's no direct linguistic evidence linking "Tartar" specifically to the concept of "father" or "God" through "da" or "that," the philosophical and metaphorical connections are fascinating. This perspective suggests that human language, culture, and spiritual concepts might all stem from similar primal vocalizations, evolving into complex systems of meaning. However, it's important to approach this idea with a blend of poetic license and philosophical curiosity rather than strict linguistic scholarship, as languages evolve in complex, often unpredictable ways influenced by countless factors beyond simple sound changes.

[Valo]

I suppose you can argue till the cows come home on how what got into the Book of Mormon got there.

We’ve yet to see you put forward any explanation for how content from 1,348 years later got into a supposedly ancient record.

There is obviously text that comports with 19th century America. There are text blocks that in most part find direct parallels to text found in the Bible.

Weasle words. It doesn’t “comport with”, it’s not “directly parallel” text found in the KJV if the Bible. It directly copies it. It’s plagiarism. Verbatim. That content on its own completely refutes the claim that the Book of Mormon makes as to its own veracity.

I think it’s fair to say that there are numerous reasons to believe in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and that critics may have their reasons for unbelief. It’s nice that in our day and age we can all live together in peace.

One of the reasons being given for disbelief in the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical record is that it includes content that was produced 1,348 years after the record was supposedly sealed and hidden up and which Joseph subsequently claimed to translate. It simply cannot be what both it, and Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

You didn't accept the explanation of how 1384 year old text was quoted and that is because you think you know the answer. But "...thinking you know something is a sure way to blind yourself."

Compartmentalizing the voices of the counter position makes no difference to reality.

[Valo]

I suppose you can argue till the cows come home on how what got into the Book of Mormon got there.

We’ve yet to see you put forward any explanation for how content from 1,348 years later got into a supposedly ancient record.

There is obviously text that comports with 19th century America. There are text blocks that in most part find direct parallels to text found in the Bible.

Weasle words. It doesn’t “comport with”, it’s not “directly parallel” text found in the KJV if the Bible. It directly copies it. It’s plagiarism. Verbatim. That content on its own completely refutes the claim that the Book of Mormon makes as to its own veracity.

I think it’s fair to say that there are numerous reasons to believe in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and that critics may have their reasons for unbelief. It’s nice that in our day and age we can all live together in peace.

One of the reasons being given for disbelief in the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical record is that it includes content that was produced 1,348 years after the record was supposedly sealed and hidden up and which Joseph subsequently claimed to translate. It simply cannot be what both it, and Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

You can't plagiarize fundamental ideas that are true across space and time.

The ideas encapsulated in the scriptures were written by some human using the words available to them. But the words are just symbolic. They are attempting to bring forward an idea.

When Joseph Smith and Company were dictating the Book of Mormon the idea expressed in Isaiah, is the idea God wanted recorded. The fact that Joseph Smith and Co. (because he didn't write it alone) quoted the Bible verbatim to express this idea given by the Spirit doesn't do anything to the truth value of those words.

The only way God can communicate to us is via our imagination, our mind. When the Spirit speaks and gives an idea the only way we are going to get any comprehension of that idea is via the filter of human mind and language. A different set of words have been spoken by other holy men that express the same idea.

You are quibleling over a technicality taught in a university but at the end of the day, the message remains and whether it was plagiarized or anything else makes no difference to this reality.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You can't plagiarize fundamental ideas that are true across space and time.

-_-

[malkie]

We’ve yet to see you put forward any explanation for how content from 1,348 years later got into a supposedly ancient record.
Weasle words. It doesn’t “comport with”, it’s not “directly parallel” text found in the KJV if the Bible. It directly copies it. It’s plagiarism. Verbatim. That content on its own completely refutes the claim that the Book of Mormon makes as to its own veracity.

One of the reasons being given for disbelief in the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical record is that it includes content that was produced 1,348 years after the record was supposedly sealed and hidden up and which Joseph subsequently claimed to translate. It simply cannot be what both it, and Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

...

When Joseph Smith and Company were dictating the Book of Mormon the idea expressed in Isaiah, is the idea God wanted recorded.
...

[Italicized words in the Bible] is a sign of honesty on the translators' part. The italicized words are interpolations, words that were not in the original documents but were added to the English text. Many of them are there to make things make better grammatical sense in English, but a few of them can actually change the meanings of the passages, so they ought to be examined critically when you run across them.

We should be grateful that god, through Joseph Smith, resolved the issue of the words italicized in the KJV by having Smith (generally) reproduced them in the Book of Mormon.

[Marcus]

...

When Joseph Smith and Company were dictating the Book of Mormon the idea expressed in Isaiah, is the idea God wanted recorded.
...

[Italicized words in the Bible] is a sign of honesty on the translators' part. The italicized words are interpolations, words that were not in the original documents but were added to the English text. Many of them are there to make things make better grammatical sense in English, but a few of them can actually change the meanings of the passages, so they ought to be examined critically when you run across them.

We should be grateful that god, through Joseph Smith, resolved the issue of the words italicized in the KJV by having Smith (generally) reproduced them in the Book of Mormon.

Lol. Great point.

[I Have Questions]

When Joseph Smith and Company were dictating the Book of Mormon the idea expressed in Isaiah, is the idea God wanted recorded. The fact that Joseph Smith and Co. (because he didn't write it alone) quoted the Bible verbatim to express this idea given by the Spirit doesn't do anything to the truth value of those words.

That’s fine. But it also refutes the claims made by Joseph Smith and the Church about the process of producing the Book of Mormon.
“THE Book of Mormon AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”…plus some bits that were copied from a KJV Bible that was lying around

Velo you are putting forward an idea that contradicts the account of Joseph Smith, the book’s claims about itself, and the Church’s position. What you suggest both refutes the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be, and is also an apostate position. You are actually suggesting that Joseph Smith and the Church aren’t telling the truth.

Bravo <applause>