Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

You could be talking about the First Vision accounts…

So apparently you are steering away from the fact that Steuss may have given some pretty flimsy evidence for the ‘brick story’.

Regards
MG

Lol, you gave yourself away already by defining 'flimsy evidence' as including Book of Mormon witnesses testimony and first vision testimony. Your arguments are moot.

[MG 2.0]

So apparently you are steering away from the fact that Steuss may have given some pretty flimsy evidence for the ‘brick story’.

Regards
MG

Lol, you gave yourself away already by defining 'flimsy evidence' as including Book of Mormon witnesses testimony and first vision testimony. Your arguments are moot.

Incorrect. You are making that association. I am not.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

You could be talking about the First Vision accounts…

So apparently you are steering away from the fact that Steuss may have given some pretty flimsy evidence for the ‘brick story’.

Regards
MG

Why is it flimsy?

[MG 2.0]

So apparently you are steering away from the fact that Steuss may have given some pretty flimsy evidence for the ‘brick story’.

Regards
MG

Why is it flimsy?

Now you’re being silly. Don’t waste my time. I’ve already been there.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Why is it flimsy?

Now you’re being silly. Don’t waste my time. I’ve already been there.

Regards,
MG

Marcus and Steuss have ably demonstrated that the evidence is as solid as anything that claims the gold plates were real. If you’re saying it’s all flimsy, fair enough.

[Marcus]

Now you’re being silly. Don’t waste my time. I’ve already been there.

Regards,
MG

Marcus and Steuss have ably demonstrated that the evidence is as solid as anything that claims the gold plates were real. If you’re saying it’s all flimsy, fair enough.

He is. His own words:

... give undue credence and/or acceptance to this rather shaky story that has layers of prejudicial and chronological time related testimony issues involved.

But then again, maybe it’s rather simple. It fits a narrative...

[MG 2.0]

Now you’re being silly. Don’t waste my time. I’ve already been there.

Regards,
MG

Marcus and Steuss have ably demonstrated that the evidence is as solid as anything that claims the gold plates were real. If you’re saying it’s all flimsy, fair enough.

That’s not what I’m saying. That’s what you’re saying.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Marcus and Steuss have ably demonstrated that the evidence is as solid as anything that claims the gold plates were real. If you’re saying it’s all flimsy, fair enough.

He is. His own words:

... give undue credence and/or acceptance to this rather shaky story that has layers of prejudicial and chronological time related testimony issues involved.

But then again, maybe it’s rather simple. It fits a narrative...

I’m not saying anything in particular about gold plates. What I am saying is that the ‘brick story’ rests on a sandy foundation. You folks are making a connection to the story of the plates and passing judgement based upon your own subjective judgement. Leave the plates out of it. Own up to the fact that the brick story is flimsy.

Period.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Now you’re being silly. Don’t waste my time. I’ve already been there.

Regards,
MG

Marcus and Steuss have ably demonstrated that the evidence is as solid as anything that claims the gold plates were real.

They haven’t demonstrated anything. Making a statement doesn’t mean/prove anything. C’mon guys. Get real. You’re wasting time here.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Marcus and Steuss have ably demonstrated that the evidence is as solid as anything that claims the gold plates were real.

Making a statement doesn’t mean/prove anything.

But the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is…well…a statement. Thanks for confirming that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon doesn’t mean/prove anything. We are agreed.

The First Vision is also, just a statement. So by your own reasoning, that doesn’t mean/prove anything.